ArticleCancer medicine2026
Second Line Treatment Decision as Per Standard of Care or Foundation Medicine in Patients With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.
Article in Cancer medicine, 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMolecular genetic profiling is crucial for treatment choice in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The Lung-ONE study aimed to determine the clinical utility of comprehensive genomic profile (CGP) tests, such as FoundationOne CDx or FoundationOne Liquid, in guiding second line therapy decisions for advanced NSCLC patients in Spain. Additionally, the study sought to describe the genomic alterations found in these patients.
methodsThis national, multicenter, prospective study included adult patients diagnosed with advanced/metastatic NSCLC undergoing first line treatment with molecular diagnostic wild-type (or unknown) for at least ALK, EGFR, and ROS-1 genes under clinical practice conditions. Physicians planned their therapeutic decision for second line treatment according to the standard of care (SOC) and subsequently re-evaluated this initial decision after a Foundation One or Foundation ACT test (FMI) report was provided. Patients continue to be followed up for up to 2 years.
resultsThe study analyzed 151 advanced NSCLC patients. The FMI report identified 542 driver mutations in actionable genes for 132 patients, including mutations in EGFR, ALK, and BRAF that were previously missed by single-gene testing as per SOC. Additional driver alterations were also detected in ERBB2/HER2, MET, and RET genes. FMI identified mutations with designated therapies in 116 patients. Consequently, clinicians identified 44 (29.1%) patients with gene alterations associated with off-label drugs, and 13 (8.6%) patients were directed toward clinical trials.
conclusionsUsing FMI data, clinicians were able to direct patients toward clinical trials and to modify SOC clinical management for several NSCLC patients. These results demonstrate the benefit of FMI genomic profiling in identifying actionable driver mutations that would otherwise be missed by SOC methodology. The findings suggest that CGP is a promising and robust tool for improving personalized medicine in NSCLC treatment in Spain.
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.