ArticleCancer medicine2023
Assessing the utility of molecular diagnostic classification for cancers of unknown primary.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cancer of unknown primary: the evolution of tissue of origin identification in the artificial intelligence era.Biomarker research · 2026Review
- Tumor diagnosis recharacterization enabled by comprehensive genomic profiling to guide precision medicine strategy.NPJ precision oncology · 2025Article
- A rare case report on esophageal squamous cell carcinoma metastatic to the pancreas.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Assessing the utility of molecular diagnostic classification for cancers of unknown primary.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRoughly 5% of metastatic cancers present with uncertain origin, for which molecular classification could influence subsequent management; however, prior studies of molecular diagnostic classifiers have reported mixed results with regard to clinical impact. In this retrospective study, we evaluated the utility of a novel molecular diagnostic classifier by assessing theoretical changes in treatment and additional testing recommendations from oncologists before and after the review of classifier predictions.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed de-identified records from 289 patients with a consensus diagnosis of cancer of uncertain/unknown primary (CUP). Two (or three, if adjudication was required) independent oncologists separately reviewed patient clinical information to determine the course of treatment before they reviewed results from the molecular diagnostic classifier and subsequently evaluated whether the predicted diagnosis would alter their treatment plan.
resultsResults from the molecular diagnostic classifier changed the consensus oncologist-reported treatment recommendations for 235 out of 289 patients (81.3%). At the level of individual oncologist reviews (n = 414), 64.7% (n = 268) of treatment recommendations were based on CUP guidelines prior to review of results from the molecular diagnostic classifier. After seeing classifier results, 98.1% (n = 207) of the reviews, where treatment was specified (n = 211), were guided by the tissue of origin-specific guidelines. Overall, 89.9% of the 414 total reviews either expressed strong agreement (n = 242) or agreement (n = 130) that the molecular diagnostic classifier result increased confidence in selecting the most appropriate treatment regimen.
conclusionsA retrospective review of CUP cases demonstrates that a novel molecular diagnostic classifier could affect treatment in the majority of patients, supporting its clinical utility. Further studies are needed to prospectively evaluate whether the use of molecular diagnostic classifiers improves clinical outcomes in CUP patients.
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.