ArticleBMC cancer2025
Detection of oncogenic fusions in colorectal cancer using a partner-agnostic next-generation sequencing approach.
Article in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGene fusions exist with low prevalence in colorectal cancer (CRC), and the clinical utility of fusion testing in advanced CRC remains unclear. We sought to identify oncogenic fusions in patients with advanced CRC using a fusion partner-agnostic circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) assay to better understand their clinical relevance.
methodsWe performed a retrospective analysis using de-identified data from 18,558 patients with advanced CRC who underwent ctDNA next-generation sequencing with Guardant360
resultsFusions were identified in 221 (1.3%) of CRC patients analyzed. 193 patients had 258 activating fusions, while 28 patients had fusions of uncertain significance. Among patients with activating fusions, there were 18 clonal fusions (7%) and 240 (93%) subclonal fusions. Clonal fusions were more common in patients with MSI-H status, and subclonal fusions were associated with prior EGFR exposure signature.
conclusionsAmong patients with advanced CRC, partner-agnostic ctDNA fusion detection is possible and improves identification as a blood-based approach by extension of fusion calling partners. Detection of fusions in the ctDNA may provide rationale for potential therapeutic strategies according to clonality as informed by the ctDNA, whereas subclonal fusions may play a role in acquired resistance to EGFR inhibitors in KRAS/NRAS/BRAF
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.