ArticleScientific reports2022
Assessment of a cancer genomic profile test for patients with metastatic breast cancer.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Precision Oncology Guided by Genomic Profiling in Breast Cancer: Real-World Data from a Molecular Tumor Board.Cancers · 2025Article
- Importance of EQA/PT for the detection of genetic variants in comprehensive cancer genome testing.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- NGS-Guided Precision Oncology in Breast Cancer and Gynecological Tumors-A Retrospective Molecular Tumor Board Analysis.Cancers · 2024Article
- Advancing precision and personalized breast cancer treatment through multi-omics technologies.American journal of cancer research · 2024Review
- Review
- Selection bias due to delayed comprehensive genomic profiling in Japan.Cancer science · 2023Article
- HOPE (SOLTI-1903) breast cancer study: real-world, patient-centric, clinical practice study to assess the impact of genomic data on next treatment decision-choice in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Comprehensive cancer genomic profile (CGP) tests are being implemented under Japanese universal health insurance system. However, the clinical usefulness of CGP test for breast cancer patients has not been evaluated. Of the 310 patients who underwent CGP testing at our institution between November 2019 and April 2021, 35 patients with metastatic breast cancer whose treatment strategy was discussed by our molecular tumor board within the study period were investigated after exclusion of 2 cases that could not be analyzed. The turn-around time, drug accessibility, and germline identification detection were evaluated. The subtype was luminal in 20 patients (57.1%), triple-negative in 12 patients (34.3%), and luminal-HER2 in 3 patients (8.6%). Actionable gene mutations were detected in 30 patients (85.7%), and 7 patients (20.0%) were recommended for clinical trial participation, with the drug administered to 2 patients (5.7%). Three patients (8.6%) died due to disease progression before the test results were disclosed. We report the results of an initial assessment of the utility of CGP testing for patients with metastatic breast cancer under Japanese universal health insurance system. Conducting CGP tests at a more appropriate time could provide patients with greater benefit from treatments based on their specific gene mutations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.