Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36335173›Full record

ArticleNPJ precision oncology2022

Comprehensive clinicopathological and genomic profiling of gallbladder cancer reveals actionable targets in half of patients.

Tessa J J de Bitter, Philip R de Reuver, Elise A J de Savornin Lohman, Leonie I Kroeze, Marianne E Vink-Börger, Shannon van Vliet, Femke Simmer, Daniel von Rhein, Erik A M Jansen, Joanne Verheij and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ precision oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Genomic landscape and clinicopathological predictors of survival in gallbladder cancer.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Tessa J J de BitterRadboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Department of Pathology, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Tessa.JJ.deBitter@radboudumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8669-3834
Philip R de ReuverRadboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Elise A J de Savornin LohmanRadboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Leonie I KroezeRadboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Department of Pathology, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Marianne E Vink-BörgerRadboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Department of Pathology, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Shannon van VlietRadboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Department of Pathology, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Femke SimmerRadboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Department of Pathology, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Daniel von RheinRadboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Department of Human Genetics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Erik A M JansenRadboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Department of Human Genetics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Joanne VerheijCancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Pathology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Carla M L van HerpenRadboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Department of Medical Oncology, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Iris D NagtegaalRadboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Department of Pathology, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Marjolijn J L LigtenbergRadboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Department of Pathology, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1290-1474
Rachel S van der PostRadboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Department of Pathology, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7531-9599

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gallbladder cancer (GBC) is a rare, highly aggressive malignancy with a 5-year survival rate of 5-10% in advanced cases, highlighting the need for more effective therapies. The aim of this study was to identify potentially actionable therapeutic targets for GBC. Specimens and clinicopathological data of 642 GBC patients, diagnosed between 2000 and 2019 were collected using the Dutch Pathology Registry (PALGA) and the Netherlands Cancer Registry. All cases were histologically reviewed and a subset was subjected to a comprehensive next generation sequencing panel. We assessed mutations and gene amplifications in a panel of 54 actionable genes, tumor-mutational burden (TMB), and microsatellite instability (MSI). Additionally, the entire cohort was screened for HER2, PD-L1, pan-TRK, and p53 expression with immunohistochemistry. Histopathological subtypes comprised biliary-type adenocarcinoma (AC, 69.6%), intestinal-type AC (20.1%) and other subtypes (10.3%). The median total TMB was 5.5 mutations/Mb (range: 0-161.1) and 17.7% of evaluable cases had a TMB of >10 mutations/Mb. MSI was observed in two cases. Apart from mutations in TP53 (64%), tumors were molecularly highly heterogeneous. Half of the tumors (50%) carried at least one molecular alteration that is targetable in other tumor types, including alterations in CDKN2A (6.0% biallelically inactivated), ERBB2 (9.3%) and PIK3CA (10%). Immunohistochemistry results correlated well with NGS results for HER2 and p53: Pearson r = 0.82 and 0.83, respectively. As half of GBC patients carry at least one potentially actionable molecular alteration, molecular testing may open the way to explore targeted therapy options for GBC patients.

Identifiers

PMID36335173
PMCPMC9637208

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.