ArticleThe oncologist2022
Real-World Comprehensive Genomic Profiling Success Rates in Tissue and Liquid Prostate Carcinoma Specimens.
Article in The oncologist, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Chromosomal instability in circulating tumor cells and cabazitaxel resistance in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.JCI insight · 2025Trial
- Towards implementation of precision medicine biomarkers in early detection and prognostication of prostate cancer.Cancer metastasis reviews · 2026Review
- Genomic Classification to Predict Survival in Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Development of Somatic Tumor Risk Assessment for Overall Survival-Prostate.JCO precision oncology · 2026Article
- Emergence of BRCA Reversion Mutations in Prostate Cancer Prior to PARP Inhibitor Exposure: Clinical and Therapeutic Implications.Cancer medicine · 2026Article
- Liquid-based genomic profiling in high-risk localized prostate cancer.Frontiers in urology · 2026Article
- Characterization of Plasma Cell-Free DNA Variants as of Tumor or Clonal Hematopoiesis Origin in 16,812 Advanced Cancer Patients.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2025Article
- Storage Time and DNA Quality DetermineCancers · 2025Article
- Somatic Tumor Next-Generation Sequencing in US Veterans With Metastatic Prostate Cancer.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Real-world pan-tumor comprehensive genomic profiling sample adequacy and success rates in tissue and liquid specimens.The oncologist · 2025Article
- Clinical and Technical Validation of OncoIndxCancers · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Challenges with sequencing tissue samples from patients with prostate cancer have been reported in clinical trials. To assess the success rate of comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) for prostate cancer patients, we analyzed a real-world cohort who underwent sequencing of their prostate tissue sample as well as a subset of patients with a reflex liquid biopsy. Overall, a significant majority (82%) of tissue prostate carcinoma samples yielded reportable CGP results. Of those samples that were unsuccessful, most (75%) were inadequate samples that did not meet pre-established criteria to advance into sequencing. For cases where liquid CGP was performed if tissue CGP was unsuccessful, mutations that were likely attributable to prostate carcinoma were observed in most cases and all cases were successful in generating a report. These results suggest that, for CGP testing, prostate cancer tissue is a reasonable matrix type and that liquid samples can be effectively used as an alternative to tissue.
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.