Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36914665›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2023

Systematic review of NTRK 1/2/3 fusion prevalence pan-cancer and across solid tumours.

Sophie O'Haire, Fanny Franchini, Yoon-Jung Kang, Julia Steinberg, Karen Canfell, Jayesh Desai, Stephen Fox, Maarten IJzerman

Full text readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Frontiers in medicine · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Tumour-agnostic kinase inhibitors.Nature reviews. Drug discovery · 2025
    Review
  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

8 authors.

Sophie O'HaireCancer Health Services Research, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. sophie.ohaire@petermac.org.
Fanny FranchiniCancer Health Services Research, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Yoon-Jung KangThe Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a Joint Venture with Cancer Council New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Julia SteinbergThe Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a Joint Venture with Cancer Council New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Karen CanfellThe Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a Joint Venture with Cancer Council New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Jayesh DesaiSir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Stephen FoxSir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Maarten IJzermanCancer Health Services Research, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

NTRK gene fusions are rare somatic mutations found across cancer types with promising targeted therapies emerging. Healthcare systems face significant challenges in integrating these treatments, with uncertainty in prevalence and optimal testing methods to identify eligible patients. We performed a systematic review of NTRK fusion prevalence to inform efficient diagnostic screening and scale of therapeutic uptake. We searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases on 31/03/2021. Inclusion criteria were studies reporting fusion rates in solid tumours, English language, post-2010 publication and minimum sample size. Critical appraisal was performed using a custom 11-item checklist. Rates were collated by cancer type and pooled if additional synthesis criteria were met. 160 studies were included, with estimates for 15 pan-cancer and 429 specific cancer types (63 paediatric). Adult pan-cancer estimates ranged 0.03-0.70%, with higher rates found in RNA-based assays. In common cancers, rates were consistently below 0.5%. Rare morphological subtypes, colorectal microsatellite instability, and driver mutation exclusion cancers had higher rates. Only 35.6% of extracted estimates used appropriate methods and sample size to identify NTRK fusions. NTRK fusion-positive cancers are rare and widely distributed across solid tumours. Small-scale, heterogeneous data confound prevalence prediction. Further large-scale, standardised genomic data are needed to characterise NTRK fusion epidemiology.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsReceptor, trkAAdultChildGene FusionGenomicsHumansOncogene Proteins, FusionPrevalenceOncogene Proteins, FusionReceptor, trkA

Identifiers

PMID36914665
PMCPMC10011574

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read142
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.