ArticleClinical and experimental medicine2023
Utility of public knowledge bases for the interpretation of comprehensive tumor molecular profiling results.
Article in Clinical and experimental medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
26 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the growing use of comprehensive tumor molecular profiling (CTMP), the therapeutic landscape of cancer is rapidly evolving. NGS produces large amounts of genomic data requiring complex analysis and subsequent interpretation. We sought to determine the utility of publicly available knowledge bases (KB) for the interpretation of the cancer mutational profile in clinical practice. Analysis was performed across patients who previously underwent CTMP. Independent interpretation of the CTMP was performed manually, and then, the recommendations were compared to ones present in KBs (OncoKB, CIViC, CGI, CGA, VICC, MolecularMatch). A total of 222 CTMP reports from 222 patients with 932 genomic alterations (GA) were identified. For 368 targetable GA identified in 171 (77%) of the patients, 1381 therapy recommendations were compiled. Except for CGA, therapy ESCAT LOE I, II, IIIA and IIIB therapy options were equally represented in the majority of KB. Personalized treatment options with ESCAT LOE I-II were provided for 35 patients (16%); MolecularMatch/CIViC allowed to collect ESCAT I-II treatment options for 34 of them (97%), OncoKB/CGI-for 33 of them (94%). Employing VICC and CGA 6 (17%) and 20 (57%) of patients were left without ESCAT I or II treatment options. For 88 patients with ESCAT level III-B therapy recommendations: only 2 (2%), 3 (3%), 4 (5%) and 6 (7%) of patients were left without options with CIViC, MolecularMatch, CGI and OncoKB, and with VICC-12 (14%). Highest overlap ratio was observed for IIIA (0.81) biomarkers, with the comparable results for LOE I-II. Meanwhile, overlap ratio for ESCAT LOE IV was 0.22. Public KBs provide substantial information on ESCAT-I/R1 biomarkers, but the information on ESCAT II-IV and resistance biomarkers is underrepresented. Manual curation should be considered the gold standard for the CTMP interpretation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36752890What 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.