ArticleMolecular oncology2023
Genomically matched therapy in refractory colorectal cancer according to ESMO Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets: experience of a comprehensive cancer centre network.
Article in Molecular oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Multigene Panel Next-Generation Sequencing Techniques in the Management of Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Carcinoma: The Way Forward for Personalized Treatment? A Single-Center Experience.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Identification of potentially actionable genetic variants in epithelial ovarian cancer: a retrospective cohort study.NPJ precision oncology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Efficiency of expanded genomic profiling (EGP) programmes in terms of final inclusion of patients in genomically matched therapies is still unknown. Fit patients with advanced and refractory colorectal cancer (CRC) were selected for an EGP programme. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) analysis from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumour samples was performed. The purpose was to describe the prevalence of genomic alterations defined by the ESMO Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT), as well as the percentage of patients finally included in genomically guided clinical trials. In total, 187 patients were recruited. Mutational profile was obtained in 177 patients (10 patients were failure due to insufficient tumour sample), copy number alterations in 41 patients and fusions in 31 patients. ESCAT-defined alterations were detected in 28.8% of the intention-to-analyse population. BRAF V600E was clustered in ESCAT I, with a prevalence of 3.7%, KRAS G12C and ERBB2 amplification were clustered in ESCAT II, whose prevalence was 4.2% and 1.6%, respectively. Most alterations were classified in ESCAT III (mutations in ERBB2, PIK3CA or FGFR genes and MET amplification) and IV (mutations in BRAF non-V600E, ERBB3, FBXW7, NOTCH, RNF43), with a single prevalence under 5%, except for PIK3CA mutation (9%). The final rate of inclusion into genomically guided clinical trials was 2.7%, including therapies targeting BRAF V600E or RNF43 mutations in two patients each, and ERBB2 mutation in one patient. In conclusion, EGP programmes in patients with advanced CRC are feasible and identify a subset of patients with potentially druggable genomic alterations. However, further efforts must be made to increase the rate of patients treated with genomically guided therapies.
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.