ArticleJCO precision oncology2024
Biomarker Inference and the Timing of Next-Generation Sequencing in a Multi-Institutional, Cross-Cancer Clinicogenomic Data Set.
Article in JCO precision oncology, 2024. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- High tumor mutational burden and PIK3CA mutations correlate with poor Merkel cell carcinoma-specific survival.JCI insight · 2026Article
- Research Trends and Development Dynamics of qPCR-based Biomarkers: A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis.Molecular biotechnology · 2026Review
- Collaborating across sectors in service of open science, precision oncology, and patients: an overview of the AACR Project GENIE (Genomics Evidence Neoplasia Information Exchange) Biopharma Collaborative (BPC).ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeObservational clinicogenomic data sets, consisting of tumor next-generation sequencing (NGS) data linked to clinical records, are commonly used for cancer research. However, in real-world practice, oncologists frequently request NGS in search of treatment options for progressive cancer. The extent and impact of this dynamic on analysis of clinicogenomic research data are not well understood.
methodsWe analyzed clinicogenomic data for patients with non-small cell lung, colorectal, breast, prostate, pancreatic, or urothelial cancers in the American Association for Cancer Research Biopharmaceutical Consortium cohort. Associations between baseline and time-varying clinical characteristics and time from diagnosis to NGS were measured. To explore the impact of informative cohort entry on biomarker inference, statistical interactions between selected biomarkers and time to NGS with respect to overall survival were calculated.
resultsAmong 7,182 patients, time from diagnosis to NGS varied significantly by clinical factors, including cancer type, calendar year of sequencing, institution, and age and stage at diagnosis. NGS rates also varied significantly by dynamic clinical status variables; in an adjusted model, compared with patients with stable disease at any given time after diagnosis, patients with progressive disease by imaging or oncologist assessment had higher NGS rates (hazard ratio for NGS, 1.61 [95% CI, 1.45 to 1.78] and 2.32 [95% CI, 2.01 to 2.67], respectively). Statistical interactions between selected biomarkers and time to NGS with respect to survival, potentially indicating biased biomarker inference results, were explored.
conclusionTo evaluate the appropriateness of a data set for a particular research question, it is crucial to measure associations between dynamic cancer status and the timing of NGS, as well as to evaluate interactions involving biomarkers of interest and NGS timing with respect to survival outcomes.
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.