ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal oncology2024
Development of a streamlined NGS-based TCGA classification scheme for gastric cancer and its implications for personalized therapy.
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2024. 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.
- CD8Cancer science · 2026Article
- The global clinical trial landscape of PD-1-containing bispecific antibodies for gastric cancer: current status and future directions of targeting immune tolerance.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Precision Neuro-Oncology in Glioblastoma: AI-Guided CRISPR Editing and Real-Time Multi-Omics for Genomic Brain Surgery.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) has identified four distinct molecular subtypes of gastric cancer (GC) with prognostic significance: Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-positive, microsatellite instability (MSI)-high, genomically stable (GS), and chromosomal instability (CIN). Unfortunately, the complex analysis required for TCGA classification limits its practical use in clinical settings. Our study sought to devise a next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based method to classify GC more efficiently, serving as a promising biomarker for prognosis and immunotherapy efficacy. Methods: This study was a retrospective observation study, and we employed 2 independent GC cohorts. The 3DMed cohort (n=765), comprising data on 733 cancer-related genes along with 4 EBV-encoded genes, was utilized to develop the new NGS classification. Additionally, the secondary Korean cohort (n=55), which includes both genomic data and information on immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment, was employed to establish a correlation between NGS subtypes and ICI responsiveness. Results: In the 3DMed cohort, we identified 5.2% EBV, 4.6% MSI, 30.6% GS, and 59.6% CIN subtypes. The MSI subtype exhibited the highest number of mutation events, along with the highest tumor mutational burden (TMB) and strong programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression. CIN tumors showed extensive copy number variations (CNVs) and genomic heterogeneity. The EBV subtype presented recurrent Conclusions: The NGS method successfully maps the mutational landscape of GC, providing a practical TCGA classification surrogate to optimize patient-specific treatment strategies.
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.