ArticleThe oncologist2025
Real-world pan-tumor comprehensive genomic profiling sample adequacy and success rates in tissue and liquid specimens.
Article in The oncologist, 2025. 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.
- Implementation of a 1021-gene liquid biopsy assay for real-world tumor genomic profiling in oncology practice.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Genetic Landscape of Solid Malignant Tumors in a Russian Cohort of Patients.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Single-Cell Sequencing Unravels Pancreatic Cancer: Novel Technologies Reveal Novel Aspects of Cellular Heterogeneity and Inform Therapeutic Strategies.Biomedicines · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Real-world success rate of liquid and tissue-based comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) is unknown. We analyzed real-world pan-tumor cohorts that underwent CGP during clinical care via FoundationOne CDx (F1CDx) and FoundationOne Liquid CDx (F1LCDx) to determine tissue and liquid sample adequacy based on tumor type. Pan-tumor presequencing adequacy was high (>90%) by both tissue-based F1CDx (median: 92.3%; range: 88.2%-96.9%) and liquid-based F1LCDx (median: 94.8%; range: 86.6%-96.7%). Similarly, postsequencing analysis revealed that most tissue and liquid samples yielded successful sequencing results with a median sequencing success rate of 97.9% and 98.1% for F1CDx and F1LCDx, respectively. One exception is central nervous system (CNS) tumors, for which F1CDx had dramatically higher sample sufficiency (96.9%) and postsequencing success rate (97.0%) compared with F1LCDx (86.6% and 92.9%, respectively). The pan-tumor median sample-to-success rate was 90.4% (range: 84.8%-94.4%) for F1CDx. The equivalent rate for F1LCDx was slightly higher at 93.2% (range: 80.4%-95.7%). Conversely, when examining the prevalence of F1LCDx results with high tumor fraction (TF≥1%), the sample-to-high TF results rate was dramatically lower (median: 37.7%, range: 2.1% [CNS tumors]-46.0%). In conclusion, except in CNS tumors or when accounting for liquid TF, success rates of F1CDx and F1LCDx are equivalently high. These results may guide informed decision on when to pursue tissue vs liquid testing of patients with cancer.
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.