ArticleJCO precision oncology2026
Unique Features of a Comprehensive Genomic Profiling Panel: Expanding Treatment Options in a Value-Based Community Oncology Network.
Article in JCO precision oncology, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeComprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) is strongly advocated by organizations like ASCO and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) to tailor precision-guided therapies for patients with cancer. However, these guidelines often lack specificity regarding panel size or essential features required within CGP panels. MATERIALS AND
methodsA pilot pan-cancer study of patients (N = 85) treated in a value-based community health care setting who received next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based CGP from Tempus AI, Inc and an expanded analysis of de-identified patient records from the Tempus database (N = 465) for patients treated within a community health care network. Rates of potentially actionable findings defined as variants matching US Food and Drug Administration -approved therapies (somatic variants/resistance markers, Tumor Mutational Burden high [TMB-H] or Microsatellite Instability high [MSI-H]), or identification of pathogenic/likely pathogenic germline findings. Enrollment in clinical trials was included in the expanded cohort.
resultsIn our pilot cohort, potentially actionable alterations were detected in 49% of patients (n = 42). Of them, 12% (n = 5) of patients had a finding that was identified only by advanced features-including tumor-normal match, RNA sequencing, and/or liquid biopsy reflex testing-and may have been missed by the existing in-network NGS options. In the expanded cohort, potentially actionable alterations were detected in 31% (n = 146) of patients. Of them, 12% (n = 17) had findings identified solely by advanced features, including three patients enrolled in clinical trials.
conclusionThis study indicates that the CGP expanded treatment options in both the pilot and expanded cohort, with improvements directly attributable to specific features like tumor-normal matching, liquid biopsy reflex ordering, RNA sequencing, and Just-in-Time clinical trial matching.
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.