ArticleOncology and therapy2026
Real-World Actionability Analysis of Comprehensive Genomic Profiling Versus Single/Small-Gene Panels.
Article in Oncology and therapy, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionComprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) enables identification of patients eligible for targeted treatments, making it essential in the management of advanced cancer. This retrospective real-world study compared actionable mutations in CGP-tested patients with advanced/metastatic solid tumors to those who received single-gene/small-panel (SP) tests.
methodsPatients aged > 18 years with advanced/metastatic solid tumors (including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), colorectal cancer, prostate cancer, breast cancer, or melanoma) with a CGP or SP test reported between 1 January 2018, and 31 December 2022, were included. OncoKB-derived actionability was compared between the two cohorts. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for baseline characteristics. A weighted generalized linear model with log link was used to report actionability ratio (AR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).
resultsAmong 406 patients (CGP-tested cohort: 202, SP-tested cohort: 204), approximately half were diagnosed with NSCLC. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, CGP testing detected more actionable alterations than SP: OncoKB level 1 (50.0% versus 31.4%; AR 1.76 [95% CI: 1.24, 2.51]; p = 0.002), OncoKB level 2 (22.8% versus 10.3%; AR 2.53 [95% CI: 1.17, 5.48]; p = 0.018), and OncoKB level 1 or level 2 or level R1 (55.9% versus 41.2%; AR 1.5 [95% CI: 1.11, 2.01]; p = 0.008).
conclusionsCGP testing identified more actionable genetic alterations compared with SP testing methods for patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC, colorectal cancer, prostate cancer, breast cancer, or melanoma. Expanding reimbursement and coverage for CGP testing as well as expanding CGP use can facilitate equitable treatment access for patients with advanced/metastatic cancer.
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.