ArticleCancers2022
Prevalence of
Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Liquid biopsy in the clinical management of tumor of urinary system: current status and future developments.Cellular oncology (Dordrecht, Netherlands) · 2026Review
- Biomarkers and Management of Cholangiocarcinoma: Unveiling New Horizons for Precision Therapy.Cancers · 2025Review
- The Search for Risk, Diagnostic, and Prognostic Biomarkers of Cholangiocarcinoma and Their Biological and Clinicopathologic Significance.The American journal of pathology · 2025Review
- Liquid biopsy in biliary tract cancers: early diagnosis, precision therapy, and prognostic evaluation.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Review
- Review
- Relationship among DDR gene mutations, TMB and PD-L1 in solid tumour genomes identified using clinically actionable biomarker assays.NPJ precision oncology · 2023Article
- Clinical and mutational profile of AT-rich interaction domain 1A-mutated cancers.Exploration of targeted anti-tumor therapy · 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
7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
ARID1A abnormalities disturb transcriptional processes regulated by chromatin remodeling and correlate with immunotherapy responsiveness. We report the first blood-based cell-free DNA (cfDNA) next-generation sequencing (NGS) ARID1A analysis. From November 2016 through August 2019, 71,301 patients with advanced solid tumors underwent clinical blood-derived cfDNA testing. Of these patients, 62,851 (88%) had ≥1 cfDNA alteration, and 3137 (of the 62,851) (5%) had ≥1 deleterious ARID1A alteration (a frequency similar to the ~6% generally reported in tissue NGS), suggesting this non-invasive test’s value in interrogating ARID1A. ARID1A cfDNA alterations were most frequent in endometrial cancer, 21.3% of patients; bladder cancer, 12.9%; gastric cancer, 11%; cholangiocarcinoma, 10.9%; and hepatocellular carcinoma, 10.6%. Blood samples with a functional ARID1A abnormality had more alterations/sample (median, 6 versus 4; p < 0.0001) and more frequent co-alterations in ≥1 gene in key oncogenic pathways: signal transduction, RAS/RAF/MAPK, PI3K/Akt/mTor, and the cell cycle. Taken together, our data suggest that liquid (blood) biopsies identify ARID1A alterations at a frequency similar to that found in primary tumor material. Furthermore, co-alterations in key pathways, some of which are pharmacologically tractable, occurred more frequently in samples with functional (deleterious) ARID1A alterations than in those without such aberrations, which may inform therapeutic strategies.
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.