ArticleCancer science2022
Clinical utility of comprehensive genomic profiling tests for advanced or metastatic solid tumor in clinical practice.
Article in Cancer science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
42 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.
- Molecular Tumor Boards clinical impact on patient care and structural features: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PLoS medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Review
- A prioritization framework for BRCA1/2 variants of uncertain significance identified by comprehensive genomic profiling.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Clinical Utility of Comprehensive Genomic Profiling for Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.Thoracic cancer · 2026Article
- Implementation Benchmark of Tumor-Agnostic Eligibility Signals Across Routine Comprehensive Genomic Profiling Platforms in Japan: A Nationwide C-CAT Analysis.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Article
- Tumor-Agnostic Landscape withCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Observational
- Predicting therapeutic responses in metastatic colorectal cancer through personalized functional profiling of patient-derived spheroids.NPJ precision oncology · 2026Article
- Real-world clinical utility and challenges of comprehensive genomic profiling for advanced solid tumors in a community health institution.International journal of clinical oncology · 2026Article
- Prognostic impact of genomically matched therapy for solid cancers using real-world data from a provincial hospital in Japan.International journal of clinical oncology · 2026Article
- Comparative Analysis of a Dual DNA-RNA Panel and a DNA-Only Panel for Sarcoma: Real-World Data From a Nationwide Genomic Database.Cancer science · 2026Article
- Article
- Earlier Comprehensive Cancer Genomic Profiling in Gynecologic Cancers May Facilitate Genotype-Matched Therapy: A Prospective Single-Institution Study.Obstetrics and gynecology international · 2026Article
- Real-World Comparison of Gene-Matched vs. Non-Gene-Matched Therapy Outcomes Using Integrated Genomic and Clinical Data.Cancer science · 2025Article
- Clinical utility of comprehensive genomic profiling test for colorectal cancer: a single institution prospective observational study.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2025Observational
- Factors associated with actionable gene aberrations in pancreatic cancer based on the C-CAT database.Journal of gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Clinical potential of antibody-drug conjugates in early-phase clinical trials for late-line treatment of advanced solid tumors.Investigational new drugs · 2025Article
- Real-World Data of Comprehensive Cancer Genomic Profiling Tests Performed in the Routine Clinical Setting in Sarcoma.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- Analysis of comprehensive genomic profiling of solid tumors with a novel assay for broad analysis in clinical diagnostics.Molecular oncology · 2025Article
- A 5-year review of genomic medicine in breast cancer: insights from C-CAT data on 3776 Japanese patients.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previous clinical trials indicate that 10%-25% of patients received genomically matched therapy after comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) tests. However, the clinical utility of CGP tests has not been assessed in clinical practice. We assessed the clinical utility of CGP tests for advanced or metastatic solid tumor and determined the proportion of patients receiving genomically matched therapy among those with common and non-common cancers. From August 2019 to July 2020, a total of 418 patients had undergone CGP tests, and the results were discussed through the molecular tumor board at our site. The median age of patients was 57 (range: 3-86) years. Colorectal cancer was the most common, with 47 (11%) patients. Actionable genomic alterations (median 3, range: 1-17) were identified in 368 (88.0%) of 418 patients. Druggable genomic alterations were determined in 196 (46.9%) of 418 patients through the molecular tumor board. Genomically matched therapy was administered as the subsequent line of therapy in 51 (12.2%) patients, which is comparable to the proportion we previously reported in a clinical trial (13.4%) (p = 0.6919). The proportion of patients receiving genomically matched therapy was significantly higher among those with common cancers (16.2%) than non-common cancers (9.4%) (p = 0.0365). Genomically matched therapy after the CGP tests was administered to 12.2% of patients, which is similar to the proportion reported in the previous clinical trials. The clinical utility of CGP tests in patients with common cancers greatly exceeded that in patients with non-common cancers.
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.