ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
Case report: Single gene testing and comprehensive genomic profiling in non-small cell lung cancer-a case series of divergent results from a large reference laboratory.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluating the Cost of Genomic Testing for Biomarker-Driven Therapies in Oncology.Oncology and therapy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical management of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) requires accurate identification of tumor-specific genetic alterations to inform treatment options. Historically, providers have relied on single-gene testing (SGT) for actionable variants due to a perception of cost-effectiveness and/or efficient turnaround time compared to next-generation sequencing (NGS). However, not all actionable variants may be evaluated through SGT modalities, and an SGT approach can exhaust valuable tissue needed for more comprehensive analyses. In contrast, comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) tests employ NGS to sequence megabases of DNA and RNA to evaluate all relevant molecular alterations, providing a broader genetic profile to identify actionable alterations that SGT may not accurately or efficiently assess. Here, we briefly describe four cases from a large reference laboratory in which actionable alterations were identified by CGP but not SGT. The discussion highlights the utility and advantages of using CGP to provide complete and timely treatment options and clinical trial opportunities for patients with NSCLC.
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.