ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2022
Clinical Impact of High Throughput Sequencing on Liquid Biopsy in Advanced Solid Cancer.
Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- SHIVA02 Trial: Using Patients as Their Own Controls to Assess Efficacy of Therapies Based on Molecular Profiling in Patients with Refractory Cancer.Cancer research communications · 2026Article
- The Growth Modulation Index (GMI) as an Efficacy Outcome in Cancer Clinical Trials: A Scoping Review with Suggested Reporting Guidelines.Current oncology reports · 2025Article
- Advances in personalized medicine: translating genomic insights into targeted therapies for cancer treatment.Annals of translational medicine · 2025Review
- Clinical management of molecular alterations identified by high throughput sequencing in patients with advanced solid tumors in treatment failure: Real-world data from a French hospital.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Blood-Derived Liquid Biopsies Using Foundation OneCancers · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCancer therapies targeting actionable molecular alterations (AMA) have developed, but the clinical routine impact of high-throughput molecular profiling remains unclear. We present a monocentric experience of molecular profiling based on liquid biopsy in patients with cancer.
methodsPatients included had solid cancer and underwent cfDNA genomic profiling with FoudationOne Liquid CDx (F1LCDx) test, analyzing 324 genes. Primary endpoint was to describe patients with an AMA for whom clinical decisions were impacted by F1LCDx test results.
results191 patients were included, mostly with lung cancer (46%). An AMA was found in 52%. The most common molecular alterations were: TP53 (52%), KRAS (14%) and DNMT3 (11%). The most common AMA were: CHEK2 (10%), PIK3CA (9%), ATM (7%). There was no difference in progression-free survival (2.66 months vs. 3.81 months,
conclusionsRoutine cfDNA molecular profiling is feasible and can lead to the access of targeted therapies. However, no notable benefit in patient's outcomes was shown in this unselected pan-cancer study.
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.