ArticleNPJ precision oncology2026
Integration and validation of complementary ex vivo assays for functional precision oncology.
Article in NPJ 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
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Functional precision oncology (FPO) enables individualized therapy selection using patient-derived tumor models, yet the concordance of distinct ex vivo testing strategies remains unclear. Here, we compare two orthogonal drug sensitivity platforms across molecularly characterized models spanning diverse pediatric (n = 13) and adult (n = 6) cancers. A rapid ATP-based assay quantifies viability within three days, whereas a long-term dynamic image-based platform captures microtumor dynamics over two weeks, incorporating pharmacokinetic features. Up to 50 drugs were profiled across both platforms, with additional combinations evaluated in the long-term assay; genomics-guided targeted drugs served as benchmarks. Both approaches robustly distinguished responders from non-responders and showed strong agreement in therapeutic prioritization (96.5% within 95% limits of agreement). The long-term dynamic platform achieved 81% sensitivity and 78% specificity, while resolving response depth and distinguishing cytostatic from cytotoxic effects. A representative sarcoma case highlights clinical relevance: long-term dynamic profiling predicted disease progression, whereas the short-term assay captured early treatment-associated viability effects. These findings establish cross-platform reproducibility in FPO and provide a systematic benchmarking of such approaches. Defining their complementary utility will be essential for integrating FPO strategies into clinical decision-making.
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.