ArticleJCO precision oncology2026
Comparative Analysis of Potential Clinical Actionability of Genomic Alterations in Early-Onset Versus Later-Onset GI Cancers.
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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAs biomarker-directed therapy increasingly shapes GI oncology, it remains unclear whether early-onset (EO) and later-onset (LO) GI cancers harbor comparable opportunities for clinically actionable targeting. We compared the landscape of potentially actionable genomic alterations in EO versus LO GI cancers using American Association for Cancer Research Project Genomics Evidence Neoplasia Information Exchange v19.0.
methodsGI tumor samples were assigned to 10 prespecified tumor groups using OncoTree codes. Samples were annotated with OncoKB therapeutic levels and classified as potentially actionable if they harbored at least one level 1-3B alteration. EO and LO disease were defined as age at sequencing <50 years and ≥50 years, respectively. Group-wise comparisons used Wilcoxon rank-sum, chi-square, or Fisher exact testing as appropriate and with false discovery rate correction. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated age group associations overall and within tumor groups.
resultsAmong 53,945 GI tumor samples, 10,573 (19.6%) were EO and 43,372 (80.4%) were LO. EO tumors had lower prevalence of potentially actionable alterations in colorectal (71%
conclusionPotential clinical actionability differs between EO and LO GI cancers in a tumor lineage-specific manner. Several major EO GI tumor groups appear relatively depleted of potentially actionable alterations, suggesting that the expanding therapeutic reach of precision oncology may not be distributed evenly across age-defined GI cancer populations and underscoring the need for EO-focused biomarker discovery and therapeutic development.
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.