ArticlePloS one2025
Evaluation of therapeutic agent selection based on comprehensive genomic profiling in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- [Esophageal NEN: update on diagnostics and surgical treatment].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionComprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) is increasingly being integrated into standard clinical practice as a strategy to guide subsequent treatment decisions by identifying novel therapeutic options based on tumor-specific mutations. However, its clinical utility in neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) remains to be determined. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of genomic alterations, including tumor mutational burden (TMB) and microsatellite instability (MSI), in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP-NENs), comparing neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) and neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs).
resultsCGP was performed on 50 patients with advanced GEP-NENs between August 2017 and October 2023. Of these, 38 were diagnosed with NETs and 12 with NECs. Primary tumor sites included the pancreas (n = 24), gastrointestinal tract (n = 25), and one case of unknown origin. In our study, CGP analysis comparing NETs and NECs documented different genetic profiles. In addition, median TMB was significantly higher in NECs (5.0 vs. 1.9 mutations/megabase; p = 0.0101). High TMB was identified in 4 of 12 NECs (33.3%) and in only 1 of 38 NETs (2.6%) (p = 0.0093). NECs also harbored a significantly greater number of mutations per case than NETs (5.5 vs. 2.0; p = 0.0014). Actionable mutations were identified in 18 of 50 patients, and 7 patients received mutation-guided therapy: 2 with NETs and 5 with NECs. The frequency of treatment initiation based on CGP findings was significantly higher in patients with NECs (p = 0.0059).
conclusionsNECs are genetically distinct from NETs, with a higher prevalence of actionable mutations and greater therapeutic relevance of CGP findings. These results suggest that CGP may be particularly valuable in NECs, where therapeutic options are limited, supporting its proactive implementation in this subgroup.
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.