ArticleIn vivo (Athens, Greece)
Utility of Precision Oncology Using Cancer Genomic Profiling for Head and Neck Malignancies.
Article in In vivo (Athens, Greece). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identification ofCancer genomics & proteomicsArticle
- Toward Inclusive Oncology: Challenges in the Therapy of Pediatric Non-B Non-Hodgkin Lymphomas.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimIn recent years, individual patient cancer genomic profiling (CGP) has become more accessible, allowing determination of therapeutic strategies using driver gene mutations in cancer therapy. However, this precision oncology approach, tailored to specific patients, remains experimental. In this study, we verified the feasibility and benefit of using CGP to guide treatment of malignant head and neck tumors. We aimed to evaluate the profiling and clinical courses of patients with head and neck malignancies who underwent CGP and determine the extent to which CGP for head and neck malignancies has resulted in beneficial drug administration. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe analyzed CGP results, prognosis, and drug administration status in 27 patients. These patients had completed (or were expected to complete) standard therapy or had rare cancers without standard therapy.
resultsAt least one somatic actionable gene alteration was seen in 25 (92.6%) patients, with a median number of actionable alterations per patient of 4 (range=0-11). Drugs in clinical trials were recommended to 22 (81.5%) patients, but none could participate. However, 3 patients (11.1%) could use approved drugs off-label based on CGP results. The most common genetic abnormality was TP53 (66.7%), with TP53 mutations leading to poor prognosis.
conclusionCGP is clinically useful and serves as a bridge to increase the number of therapeutic options. However, candidate drugs confirmed using CGP may be ineffective when administered. Therefore, oncologists should not blindly accept CGP therapeutic recommendations but should make recommendations that lead to optimal therapies after proper verification.
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.