ArticleCancer science2025
Real-World Comparison of Gene-Matched vs. Non-Gene-Matched Therapy Outcomes Using Integrated Genomic and Clinical Data.
Article in Cancer science, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Previous studies have demonstrated that 10%-25% of patients receive gene-matched therapy (GMT) after comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP). However, its real-world clinical effects remain unclear. This study assessed the feasibility of integrating the Center for Cancer Genomics and Advanced Therapeutics (C-CAT) repository that documented genomic and clinical data and the quality indicator (QI) dataset that included cancer-specific data and administered treatment as a model case of real-world data study of cancer genomic medicine in Japan. We successfully integrated these two datasets and included 1162 patients diagnosed with solid tumors at the National Cancer Center Hospital between 2019 and 2021 who underwent CGP testing. Of these, 432 (37.2%) had druggable mutations, 96 (8.3%) received GMT, and 218 (18.8%) received non-GMT. Among 314 patients who initiated either GMT or non-GMT after CGP, the median 2-year overall survival (OS) was 19.0 and 19.7 months for GMT and non-GMT, respectively (hazard ratio: 0.87, 95% confidence interval: 0.56-1.35, p = 0.53). Stratified analysis by prior treatment lines (0-1 vs. ≥ 2) demonstrated no significant differences in survival. Sensitivity analyses yielded consistent results. This study demonstrated that integrating the C-CAT repository and QI datasets enables real-world comparisons of GMT and non-GMT outcomes. Unlike previous clinical trials reporting enhanced survival with GMT, our findings indicated no significant OS difference. Potential explanations include differences in cancer type, CGP timing, study population selection, and immortal time bias. Future multicenter studies would clarify the real-world utility of the CGP and GMT.
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.