Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 208

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Genomic Profiling of Advanced Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer in Community Settings: Gaps and Opportunities

Open access
Gutierrez, Martin E., Choi, Kelly, Lanman, Richard B., Licitra, Edward J., Skrzypczak, Stanley M., Pe Benito, Ruth, Wu, Tommy, Arunajadai, Srikesh, Kaur, Sukhi, Harper, Harry, Pecora, Andrew L., Schultz, Eric V., Goldberg, Stuart L.·2017·Clinical Lung Cancer
DOI 10.1016/j.cllc.2017.04.004
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: National guidelines have advocated broad molecular profiling as a part of the standard diagnostic evaluation for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with the goal of identifying driver mutations for which effective therapies or clinical trials are available. However, adherence to genomic testing guidelines could present challenges to community oncologists. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of genomic testing patterns in patients with nonsquamous NSCLC treated by 89 oncologists at 15 sites throughout New Jersey and Maryland from January 2013 to December 2015. RESULTS: A total of 814 patients (89% with stage IV; 11% with stage IIIB) were identified in the COTA Inc database. Of the 814 patients, 479 (59%) met the guideline recommendations for EGFR (epidermal growth factor receptor) and ALK (anaplastic lymphoma kinase) biomarker testing; 63 (8%) underwent comprehensive genomic profiling for all 4 major types of alterations (point mutations, indels, fusions, and copy number amplifications). Gender, age, race, site of care (referral vs. community center), and practice size did not influence comprehensive genomic profiling frequency. Active smokers and patients who died within 30 days were tested less frequently (P < .05). Among those not tested for EGFR and ALK, 52% received chemotherapy without documented reasons for no testing, 32% did not receive antineoplastic therapy, and 13% had insufficient tissue for genotyping. CONCLUSION: Genomic testing presents multiple logistical challenges for the community-based oncologist, including coordination of sample handling, long turnaround times, test reimbursement, access to targeted therapies, insufficient tissue, and patient harm from the repeat biopsies necessary if the tissue sample is insufficient. Opportunities exist for improvement in guideline adherence, possibly through new technologies such as "liquid biopsies," which obviates the need tissue biopsy samples in select settings.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cllc.2017.04.004

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 19 references

Cited by

See all 208

Metadata

Authors
Gutierrez, M. E., Choi, K., Lanman, R. B., Licitra, E. J., Skrzypczak, S. M., Pe Benito, R., Wu, T., Arunajadai, S., Kaur, S., Harper, H., Pecora, A. L., Schultz, E. V., & Goldberg, S. L.
Venue
Clinical Lung Cancer
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-11
Volume
18
Issue
6
Pages
651-659
ISSN
1525-7304 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.cllc.2017.04.004
OpenAlex
W2605690884
Cited by
208
References
19
FWCI
14.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Genomic Profiling of Advanced Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer in Community Settings: Gaps and Opportunities. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.cllc.2017.04.004
The paper
Gutierrez, M. E., Choi, K., Lanman, R. B., Licitra, E. J., Skrzypczak, S. M., Pe Benito, R., Wu, T., Arunajadai, S., Kaur, S., Harper, H., Pecora, A. L., Schultz, E. V., & Goldberg, S. L. (2017). Genomic Profiling of Advanced Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer in Community Settings: Gaps and Opportunities. Clinical Lung Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cllc.2017.04.004

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.