Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41647712›Full record

ArticleESMO real world data and digital oncology2025

Local and central testing for HER2, PD-L1, MSI/MMR, EBV, and CLDN18.2 in advanced gastric cancer: results from the SAPHIR registry.

K Potthoff, H Bläker, T Dechow, A Binninger, K Ringwald, R de Buhr, E von der Heyde, M-O Zahn, A Nusch, S Dörfel and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ESMO real world data and digital oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

K PotthoffiOMEDICO, Freiburg.
H BläkerInstitut für Pathologie, Universitätsmedizin Leipzig, Leipzig.
T DechowGemeinschaftspraxis für Hämatologie und Onkologie GbR, Ravensburg.
A BinningeriOMEDICO, Freiburg.
K RingwaldiOMEDICO, Freiburg.
R de BuhriOMEDICO, Freiburg.
E von der HeydeOnkologische Schwerpunktpraxis, Hannover.
M-O ZahnüBAG/MVZ Onkologische Kooperation Harz GbR, Goslar.
A NuschPraxis für Hämatologie und Internistische Onkologie, Ratingen.
S DörfelOnkozentrum Dresden/Freiberg, Dresden.
H SchulzPraxis Internistischer Onkologie und Hämatologie (PIOH), Frechen.
I HaffnerMedizinische Klinik II und Universitäres Krebszentrum (UCCL), Comprehensive Cancer Center Central Germany (CCCG), Universitätsmedizin Leipzig, Leipzig.
A K HöhnInstitut für Pathologie, Universitätsmedizin Leipzig, Leipzig.
A MoneckeInstitut für Pathologie, Universitätsmedizin Leipzig, Leipzig.
S LorenzenKlinikum Rechts der Isar der TU München, Klinik und Poliklinik für Innere Medizin III, Hämatologie und Internistische Onkologie, München.
A Reinacher-SchickSt. Josef-Hospital, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Klinik für Hämatologie und Onkologie mit Palliativmedizin, Bochum, Germany.
M JänickeiOMEDICO, Freiburg.
F LordickMedizinische Klinik II und Universitäres Krebszentrum (UCCL), Comprehensive Cancer Center Central Germany (CCCG), Universitätsmedizin Leipzig, Leipzig.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Predictive biomarkers guide treatment selection of patients with advanced gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (GAC/GEJAC). However, real-world data on testing frequencies and prevalence of biomarkers in Europe are limited. Methods: The SAPHIR registry, a prospective, observational cohort study of patients with metastatic GAC/GEJAC, collects longitudinal clinical data, patient-reported outcomes as well as tumor tissue samples from routine diagnostics. Here, we focus on biomarker testing and test results in routine clinical practice. In addition, central pathology assessment was performed for HER2, PD-L1, dMMR/MSI, EBV, and CLDN18.2. Results: From December 2019 until March 2022, a total of 473 evaluable patients were enrolled at 109 study sites in Germany. Their median age was 66.8 years, 73.6% were male, and 76.7% had an ECOG performance status of 0/1. In clinical routine, testing rates for HER2, PD-L1, MSI, EBV, and MMR were 78.6%, 31.3%, 15.6%, 4.9%, and 2.5%, respectively. CLDN18.2 was not tested during the respective period. By central testing, the positivity rates were 11.8% for HER2, 75.2% for PD-L1 (CPS ≥1, TPS/IC ≥1%), 2.5% for dMMR/MSI-H, 0.6% for EBV, and 26.7% for CLDN18.2. Deviations between local and central testing were 12.4% for HER2 and 22.4% for PD-L1. Conclusions: This study provides valuable insights on molecular testing in patients with GAC/GEJAC in Germany. In real-world, patients were frequently tested for actionable alterations, but there is room for improvement. Deviating test results of HER2 and PD-L1 by local and central pathology may reflect limitations in testing methodologies. In addition, these patients might not receive the most effective treatment.

Indexed as

biomarkergastric cancerHER2PD-L1real-world datatest deviation

Identifiers

PMID41647712
PMCPMC12836681

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.