Observational studyJCO precision oncology2025
Germline Findings From Tumor-Only Comprehensive Genomic Profiling in the RATIONAL Study: A Missed Opportunity?
Observational study in JCO precision oncology, 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.
- Life Years Gained and Healthcare Dollars Saved: National Economic Evidence Supporting Comprehensive Genomic Profiling as Standard of Care for Canadian Cancer Patients.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 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
25 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTumor comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) may detect potential germline pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) alterations as secondary findings. We analyzed the frequency of potentially germline variants and large rearrangements (LRs) in the RATIONAL study, an Italian multicenter, observational clinical trial that collects next-generation sequencing-based tumor profiling data, and evaluated how these findings were managed by the enrolling centers. PATIENTS AND
methodsPatients prospectively enrolled in the pathway-B of the RATIONAL study and undergoing CGP with the FoundationOne CDx assays were included in the analysis. Potentially germline variants detected in 40 cancer susceptibility genes (CSGs) were classified in three classes with different actionability, most (MA), high (HA), and standard (SA), on the basis of penetrance, mutational spectrum, and intervention for prevention/early detection.
resultsOn the basis of the European Society of Medical Oncology recommendations, we identified 225 potentially germline P/LP variants in 193/1,339 (14.4%) enrolled patients. In particular, 62/225 (27.5%) variants were detected in genes classified as MA-CSG class, 53/225 (23.6%) in genes belonging to the HA-CSG class, and 110/225 (48.9%) in the SA-CSG class. In addition, we detected 58 LRs in the 16/40 CSGs in 53/1,339 (3.95%) patients. Information about germline-focused analysis and follow-up was available for 99 patients with potentially germline variants. Surprisingly, 95/99 (96%) patients were not referred to oncogenetic consultation and follow-up, including 30/32 (93.75%) patients with variants in the MA-CSG class.
conclusionOur data confirm the utility of CGP for the identification of potentially germline variants in CSGs, highlighting the importance of reporting LRs in addition to single-nucleotide variants and insertions/deletions. However, our findings also demonstrate a relative lack of knowledge of the implications of germline findings detected on tumor-only sequencing among oncologists and underline the need for specific training in this area.
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.