Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41899608›Full record

ReviewCancers2026

The Evolving Role for Repeat Molecular Testing in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

Nicholas D Kendsersky, Mariah R Erlick, Emerson Y Chen, Hagen F Kennecke

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

4 authors.

Nicholas D KendserskyKnight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR 97239, USA.ORCID 0009-0007-5586-8308
Mariah R ErlickKnight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR 97239, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4354-5644
Emerson Y ChenKnight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR 97239, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3035-4478
Hagen F KenneckeKnight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR 97239, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has impacted the treatment landscape for mCRC, leading to improved outcomes through the use of molecularly targeted and immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) recommend, at a minimum, initial testing to assess RAS, BRAF, HER2, and microsatellite instability (MSI)/mismatch repair (MMR) status, as these results determine therapeutic eligibility. Broader testing to identify the eligibility for tumor-agnostic therapy for a tumor mutation burden (TMB), NTRK gene fusions, and RET fusions is encouraged for all patients with advanced solid tumors. Patients with metastatic disease may develop progressive disease, often as a result of adaptive resistance mechanisms and selective therapeutic pressure on disease heterogeneity. Repeat biomarker testing at progression has the potential to define these resistance mechanisms and to guide the next therapy or clinical trial enrollment. While these practices have become more commonplace, unified guidelines have yet to be established. In this review of the literature, we evaluate the advantages and pitfalls of sequential biomarker testing during disease progression in patients with mCRC.

Indexed as

ctDNAmetastatic colorectal cancernext-generation-sequencingprecision medicinesequential NGS

Identifiers

PMID41899608
PMCPMC13026059

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.