ArticleJCO precision oncology2023
Consensus Statements on Precision Oncology in the China Greater Bay Area.
Article in JCO precision oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Financing and health system capacity for precision medicine in Asia: a six country landscape analysis.Health affairs scholar · 2026Review
- Optimizing Precision Oncology: Structural Frameworks for Local MTB Integration and Outcome Assessment.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Molecular tumor boards in pancreatic cancer with liver metastasis: A case report.World journal of hepatology · 2025Article
- The continually evolving landscape of novel therapies in oncogene-driven advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2025Review
- The landscape of cancer research and cancer care in China.Nature medicine · 2023Review
- An Update of AI and Radiomics in Precision Oncology: Insights from Liver Tumors as Case Models.Technology in cancer research & treatmentReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
32 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNext-generation sequencing comprehensive genomic panels (NGS CGPs) have enabled the delivery of tailor-made therapeutic approaches to improve survival outcomes in patients with cancer. Within the China Greater Bay Area (GBA), territorial differences in clinical practices and health care systems and strengthening collaboration warrant a regional consensus to consolidate the development and integration of precision oncology (PO). Therefore, the Precision Oncology Working Group (POWG) formulated standardized principles for the clinical application of molecular profiling, interpretation of genomic alterations, and alignment of actionable mutations with sequence-directed therapy to deliver clinical services of excellence and evidence-based care to patients with cancer in the China GBA.
methodsThirty experts used a modified Delphi method. The evidence extracted to support the statements was graded according to the GRADE system and reported according to the Revised Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence guidelines, version 2.0.
resultsThe POWG reached consensus in six key statements: harmonization of reporting and quality assurance of NGS; molecular tumor board and clinical decision support systems for PO; education and training; research and real-world data collection, patient engagement, regulations, and financial reimbursement of PO treatment strategies; and clinical recommendations and implementation of PO in clinical practice.
conclusionPOWG consensus statements standardize the clinical application of NGS CGPs, streamline the interpretation of clinically significant genomic alterations, and align actionable mutations with sequence-directed therapies. The POWG consensus statements may harmonize the utility and delivery of PO in China's GBA.
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.