ArticleMolecular diagnosis & therapy2025
Utilization of a Multi-modal Comprehensive Genomic and Immune Profiling Testing Strategy Results in a High Rate of Test Success and Detection of Clinically Relevant Biomarkers While Optimizing Tissue Usage.
Article in Molecular diagnosis & therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Atomic force microscopy-based nanomechanical signatures as cancer biomarkers in a nutshell.FEBS letters · 2026Review
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
backgroundMolecular profiling is quickly becoming standard for patients with advanced cancer, with an increasing number of biomarker-directed therapies and innovative precision diagnostics available. However, with the expansion of relevant biomarkers, clinicians often face challenges obtaining optimal detection from limited tumor tissue. Here, we present biomarker detection rates from comprehensive genomic and immune profiling (CGIP) performed as a component of routine clinical care using a multi-modal testing strategy.
methodsCGIP was performed on 20,645 solid tumor specimens in a CAP/CLIA and NYS CLEP-certified reference laboratory, including DNA- and RNA-based next-generation sequencing (NGS), RNA gene expression profiling, and PD-L1 immunohistochemistry (IHC). RNA and DNA were co-extracted to optimize tissue usage. Clinical significance of detected biomarkers was classified in accordance with the joint consensus recommendations of the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and the College of American Pathologists (CAP).
resultsAdequacy of specimens for analysis with each test component varied from 99.8% (20,612) for PD-L1 IHC to 87.7% (18,113) for RNA-based NGS. DNA-based NGS had a > 96.0% success rate across all result components (short variants, copy number alterations, and genomic signatures), while RNA-based NGS and gene expression profiling were successful for 92.1% (16,689) and 90.2% (17,275) of cases, respectively. Median turnaround time from specimen receipt in the testing laboratory to report delivery was 8 days (range 1-35). Within our cohort of 15,815 cases with complete results available, 61.0% (9650) had at least one tier 1 biomarker with known clinical significance, 88.8% (14,039) had at least one tier 2 biomarker with potential clinical significance, 57.5% (9,090) had both tier 1 and 2 biomarkers, and 7.7% (1216) had no clinically significant biomarkers detected. Biomarker detection rates varied across tumor types, increasing with the addition of testing modalities.
conclusionsUtilization of a multi-modal CGIP testing strategy resulted in a high rate of test success and detection of clinically relevant biomarkers while optimizing tissue usage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.