ArticleThe oncologist2026
DNA and RNA-based next-generation sequencing for companion diagnostic rearrangement detection in solid tumors.
Article in The oncologist, 2026. 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.
- [Clinicopathological Characteristics of ROS1-positive Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Based on Next-generation Sequencing].Zhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer · 2026Article
- Genomic innovations in cancer prevention, diagnosis, prognosis and precision therapeutics.Frontiers in genetics · 2026Review
- Liquid biopsy biomarkers for cancer detection, treatment monitoring, and clinical outcome prediction.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile a well-designed next-generation sequencing-based DNA (DNA-NGS) comprehensive genomic profiling assay can be robust for detecting genomic rearrangements (RE), concurrent RNA-based NGS (RNA-NGS) may improve overall sensitivity. PATIENTS &
methodsWe examined detection rates of tissue sequencing-based companion diagnostic (CDx) RE (ALK, BRAF, FGFR2/3, METEx14, NTRK1/2/3, NRG1, RET, and ROS1) in a retrospective cohort of 5129 patients who received DNA- and RNA-NGS in parallel in order to quantify the added value of concurrent DNA- and RNA-NGS over DNA-NGS alone.
resultsThe prevalence of CDx gene RE was 3.3% (N = 171) across solid tumors and 2.0% (N = 101) within approved tumor types (ITT) across both DNA and RNA. 20% of CDx RE ITT and 26% of CDx gene RE across solid tumors were detected with RNA-NGS only. Detection of NRG1 and NTRK fusions was most improved due to the challenges of baiting these genes on DNA-NGS with 67% of NRG1 RE+ non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and 67% of NTRK RE+ solid tumors identified on RNA alone. A small proportion (4% ITT and 5% across all solid tumors) of CDx gene RE were detected in DNA alone in samples in which RNA could not be sequenced.
conclusionA higher rate of CDx RE detection-most significantly for NRG1 and NTRK fusions-was observed using concurrent DNA-NGS and RNA-NGS compared to DNA-NGS alone. Our results highlight the complementary nature of these methods. Given the substantial clinical benefit of RE-targeted therapies, an integrated DNA/RNA profiling strategy should be part of routine clinical care.
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.