ArticleESMO open2025
Clinical benefit of additional whole-exome sequencing over panel sequencing in an all-comer real-world molecular tumor board.
Article in ESMO open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Utility of Germline Whole-Exome Sequencing Beyond Multigene Panels in Hereditary Cancer.Genes · 2026Review
- Genomic profiling enables personalized strategies to overcome drug resistance in multiple myeloma.Discover oncology · 2026Review
- Liquid biopsies for detection, characterization, and interception of therapy resistance in thoracic malignancies.Frontiers in oncology · 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
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPanel sequencing, whole-exome sequencing (WES) and whole-genome sequencing (WGS) often uncover therapeutic targets for cancer patients. However, it is still largely unclear to what extent patients directly benefit from broader analyses over panel sequencing alone. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe analyzed the molecular findings and recommendations issued by our molecular tumor board (MTB) in a cohort of patients who had received both a well-established diagnostic panel of medium size (up to 203 genes) and in-house WES, focusing on the number of recommendations that were issued on the basis of WES results only.
resultsOur cohort consisted of 38 patients with advanced cancers, of whom about two-thirds had common and one-third had rare cancers. They received a total of 45 (range 0-4) treatment recommendations overall, of which 29 had a clinical level of evidence (LoE) and/or entailed a feasible study enrollment and were thus considered highly actionable. Sixteen recommendations, of which seven were highly actionable, were issued only on the basis of WES results (five own, two previous WES). Three out of those seven recommendations and one additional recommendation based on a previous large panel were related to complex molecular biomarkers such as homologous recombination deficiency or high tumor mutational burden, with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors or checkpoint inhibitors as recommended treatment. As expected, a higher proportion of the WES-only recommendations (63% versus 42% of recommendations overall) were based on non-clinical LoEs. One of eight recommendations implemented so far was based on biomarkers derived by WES only.
conclusionsIn our MTB, WES enabled some additional clinically highly actionable recommendations for selected patients, suggesting that some patients do benefit from additional WES. These recommendations were often related to complex biomarkers, which may in principle also be derived from larger panels. These findings should be re-investigated prospectively in larger cohorts.
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.