Loading
Life sciences · Journal article
Current Oncology · September 25, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Journal article.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Background: Tissue and plasma comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) sample different compartments and may yield nonoverlapping clinically relevant findings. We assessed the added patient-level yield of paired testing in a pan-cancer cohort from India. Methods: This retrospective, single-institution study included patients with stage IV solid tumors who underwent paired tissue and plasma CGP between November 2022 and October 2024. The primary endpoint was detection in a patient of an OncoKB Level 1 or Level 2 or R1 alteration, high tumor mutational burden, or microsatellite instability. Molecularly informed therapy and laboratory turnaround time were assessed descriptively. Results: Of 158 patients, 123 matched evaluable pairs were analyzed. Either modality detected a clinically relevant finding in 46 of 123 patients (37.4%; 95% confidence interval, 29.4–46.2%): tissue CGP in 33 (26.8%), plasma CGP in 35 (28.5%), both in 22 (17.9%), tissue only in 11 (8.9%) and plasma only in 13 (10.6%). This complementarity remained bidirectional across exploratory analyses, including a subgroup that excluded non-small cell lung cancer (33.0%), all 139 technically successful pairs (33.8%), all 158 paired sample sets (32.3%), and even when the endpoint was restricted to OncoKB alterations (22.0%). Among 91 patients with therapy-alignment data, 25 (27.5%) received molecularly informed therapy. Median laboratory turnaround time was 7 days for plasma and 13 days for tissue CGP. Conclusions: Tissue and plasma CGP were complementary rather than interchangeable in this selected cohort: either modality alone would have missed clinically relevant findings. Whether this improves outcomes is untested; prospective studies linking testing strategy to treatment delivery and survival are needed.