ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2025
Improving diagnostic capabilities in lung cancer through next-generation sequencing: a narrative review.
Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 2025. 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.
- State-level opportunities to advance biomarker testing in patients with advanced cancers and state-regulated plans.Future oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: Lung neoplasia is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide, thus, early detection and accuracy in establishing a diagnosis is paramount. As a consequence of decades of basic and translational studies revealing the genetic basis of lung cancer, a paradigm shift has occurred toward a personalized approach to medicine whereby mutational analysis confers an opportunity for safer, and expedient treatment options. In this context, next-generation sequencing (NGS) has emerged as a vital technological advance, and has become increasingly established as a core method for rapidly and effectively identifying actionable mutations in lung cancer. For these reasons, an updated review of the literature across invasive and non-invasive diagnostic modalities in lung cancer is warranted to inform diagnostic approaches and prompt new investigations. The objective of the present review is to provide a focused update on applications of NGS in lung cancer diagnostics, with a special focus on tissue acquisition methodologies and mutational analysis. Methods: The search strategy included a survey of the current literature from 2005 to 2024 in PubMed, Medline, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Eligible study types included original research, literature reviews (narrative and systematic), and observational studies. which encompassed findings pertinent to the lung cancer diagnostics, mutational analysis and lung cancer treatment overlapping with applications and use of NGS technologies. Key Content and Findings: There are extensive and diverse advantages to the use of NGS in lung cancer diagnostics, especially when compared to traditional sequencing techniques including, speed, effectiveness, easy adoption in the context of analysis of samples prepared for lung cancer diagnosis. Advances in cell-free DNA reinforce the firm role of NGS in novel approaches. Conclusions: NGS implementation is a crucial and beneficial technological leap in lung cancer diagnosis, especially given the environment of novel and established targeted and immune based therapies which require mutational testing. Its numerous benefits such as expedient results and reduced sample requirements will continue to ability optimize lung cancer outcomes by virtue of improved patient safety, reduction of unnecessary procedures, and provision of accurate results.
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.