ArticleJCO precision oncology2026
Assessing the Value of Sequential Next-Generation Sequencing and Multiple Molecular Tumor Board Reviews for Patients With Solid-Tumor Malignancies.
Article in JCO precision oncology, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeMultidisciplinary molecular tumor boards (MTBs) have demonstrated improved clinical outcomes in various malignancies. Sequential next-generation sequencing (NGS) is widely performed at the time of recurrence, which may lead to multiple MTB reviews. This study assessed the clinical benefit of multiple MTB reviews for sequential NGS.
methodsA retrospective cohort review was performed to compare patients reviewed once at a single-institution MTB and those reviewed multiple times for the same diagnosis with sequential NGS between January 2016 and December 2023. Demographics were compared, and regression and survival analysis was performed.
resultsIn all, 3,702 patients were included, 3,446 (91.6%) were reviewed once, and 256 (8.4%) were reviewed multiple times. Patients reviewed once had higher proportion of actionable findings (52.7%
conclusionSequential NGS identified actionable findings in approximately 50% of those with multiple reviews, and many patients stay on recommended therapy for at least 6 months. Patients with sequential NGS and multiple reviews have a survival advantage, and although this may be due to therapy sensitivity, it reflects the importance of NGS testing and usefulness of MTB in interpreting those results.
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.