ReviewCureus2026
Immunohistochemistry (IHC) Versus Genomic Profiling in Cancer: Roles in Precision Medicine.
Review in Cureus, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Precision oncology increasingly depends on accurate biomarker assessment to guide targeted therapies. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) has long been central to routine pathology due to its accessibility and diagnostic utility; however, the expanding role of molecularly driven treatments has highlighted limitations in protein-based testing. Genomic profiling, using next-generation sequencing (NGS), enables direct detection of genetic alterations that may not be reflected at the protein level. This review explored how IHC and molecular diagnostic approaches contribute to tumour diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic management across solid tumours. The review process framework followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement. Literature retrieved from PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science yielded 15 published studies comparing IHC and genomic profiling methods in precision oncology. Genomic profiling consistently identified clinically actionable alterations that were missed or misclassified by IHC, including gene fusions, exon-skipping events, copy-number alterations, and pathogenic mutations lacking reliable protein-level surrogates. High discordance was observed for anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), proto-oncogene 1, receptor tyrosine kinase (ROS1), mesenchymal-epithelial transition gene exon 14 skipping alteration (MET exon 14), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), mismatch repair status, and phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN). Across multiple tumour types, genomic testing refined molecular classification and expanded eligibility for targeted and immunotherapies beyond IHC-based assessment. The evidence reviewed indicates that genomic technologies expand tumour characterisation beyond conventional protein-based biomarkers by detecting mutations, copy-number changes, gene fusions, and other actionable molecular events. While IHC remains valuable for initial screening, integration of genomic testing is essential for accurate biomarker assessment and optimal treatment selection in modern precision oncology.
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.