Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38935894›Full record

ArticleJCO precision oncology2024

Clinical Utility of Tumor Next-Generation Sequencing Panel Testing to Inform Treatment Decisions for Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors in a Tertiary Care Center.

Lucia Bogdan, Ramy R Saleh, Lisa Avery, Samanta Del Rossi, Celeste Yu, Philippe L Bedard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Lucia BogdanDivision of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2099-0542
Ramy R SalehDepartment of Medical Oncology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada.
Lisa AveryDivision of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Samanta Del RossiDivision of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Celeste YuDivision of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8764-1091
Philippe L BedardDivision of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6771-2999

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThere is limited information about the clinical utility of targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) panel testing to inform decision making for patients with advanced solid tumors. The Ontario-wide Cancer Targeted Nucleic Acid Evaluation (OCTANE) is a prospective study that enrolled more than 4,500 patients with solid tumor for NGS panel testing. We performed a retrospective survey of medical oncologists to evaluate the impact of NGS testing on treatment decisions.

methodsPatients and treating oncologists were identified at the Princess Margaret Cancer Center between 2016 and 2021. Tumor-only sequencing was performed using a gene panel of either 555 or 161 cancer genes. Oncologists were asked to review testing results and complete a survey indicating whether NGS testing affected treatment decisions. The primary outcome of this study was rate of treatment change on the basis of mutation results. Patient, test, and physician factors were evaluated for association with treatment changes using univariate analyses and a mixed-effects model.

resultsOf the 582 surveys sent, 394 (67.7%) were completed. We found that 188 (47.7%) patients had testing results classified as actionable by the oncologist and 62 (15.7%) patients were matched to treatment, of whom 37 (60%) were enrolled in a clinical trial, 13 (21%) received an approved drug, four (6%) were prescribed off-label therapy, and eight (13%) avoided ineffective treatment. Patient, test, and physician characteristics were not significantly associated with treatment change. There was no difference in overall survival between patients who received matched treatment versus those who did not (

conclusionOCTANE testing led to a change in drug treatment in 15.7% of patients, supporting the clinical utility of NGS panel testing for patients with advanced solid tumors.

Indexed as

High-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingNeoplasmsTertiary Care CentersAdultAgedClinical Decision-MakingFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOntarioProspective StudiesRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID38935894
PMCPMC11371095

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.