ArticleESMO real world data and digital oncology2024
Clinical impact for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients tested using comprehensive genomic profiling at a large USA health care system.
Article in ESMO real world data and digital oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical harm from failure to deploy personalized medicine for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2026Article
- Biomarker Testing Approaches, Treatment Selection, and Cost of Care Among Adults With Advanced Cancer.JAMA network open · 2025Article
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
Background: New breakthroughs in precision therapies are transforming cancer care for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). To this effect, comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) has emerged as a streamlined workflow to test for all relevant tumor biomarkers within a single assay. Despite this, there are still significant gaps in access to CGP testing, with many patients only tested for a subset of biomarkers or not tested at all. Materials and methods: We assessed the clinical impact of wide deployment of an in-house CGP assay at a large health care system in the United States by analyzing a cohort of advanced-stage NSCLC patients who received CGP testing and a retrospective cohort that was tested with a prior-generation 50-gene assay (small panel). Results: Seventy-seven percent of CGP-tested NSCLC patients had one or more tumor biomarkers that were actionable for a precision therapy compared to 63% of small panel-tested patients. CGP-tested patients with an actionable biomarker received appropriate precision therapies at a higher rate than small panel-tested patients (64% versus 50%, Conclusions: These data demonstrate clear precision therapy selection and patient OS benefits from universal access to CGP testing. Despite this, not all patients with an actionable biomarker received a precision therapy, suggesting that there are still gaps between access to CGP testing and access to precision therapies.
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.