ArticleOncogene2025
Clinical implications of whole genome sequencing in metastatic colorectal cancer.
Article in Oncogene, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Whole genome sequencing (WGS) provides complete genetic information in one test, supporting the shift towards individualized metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treatment. Although WGS is validated as a diagnostic test, the potential clinical implications for mCRC remain unknown. We evaluated the clinical consequences of WGS in 96 mCRC patients. Clinically actionable biomarkers were identified by a molecular biologist and medical oncologist, with added value defined as biomarkers undetected by standard diagnostics. We evaluated how these biomarkers informed treatment decisions. We used patient-derived organoids (PDOs) to test drug sensitivity to MET, MEK, and CDK4/6 inhibitors, translating genomic findings into functional evidence. WGS yields biomarkers with clinical implications in 81% of patients, with 49% (N = 47/96) identified by WGS that were not detected by guideline-based diagnostics, and 40% (N = 38/96) not detected by applied diagnostics. The proportion of patients receiving biomarker-based treatment has increased from 11% to at least 24% by WGS. PDOs with actionable biomarkers showed clear differential response to different biomarker-based treatments. WGS enables considerably more personalized therapeutic interventions and represents a promising approach in advancing precision oncology for mCRC patients. PDO pre-screening can refine therapy by identifying (in)effective treatments in a patient-specific context, to accelerate the development of personalized treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41203868What 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.