Genomically matched therapy in advanced solid tumors: the randomized phase 2 ROME trial.

Name: Αlpha¹ Rigor Record — Genomically matched therapy in advanced solid tumors: the randomized phase 2 ROME trial.
Item: Genomically matched therapy in advanced solid tumors: the randomized phase 2 ROME trial.
Rating: 100
Author: Αlpha¹

Marchetti P, Curigliano G, Biffoni M, Lonardi S, Scagnoli S, Fornaro L, Guarneri V, De Giorgi U, Ascierto PA, Blandino G, D'Amati G, Aglietta M, Cremolini C, Conte P, Crimini E, Ceracchi M, Pisegna S, Verkhovskaia S, Bordonaro R, Bracarda S, Butturini G, Del Mastro L, DeCensi A, Fabbri A, Fenocchio E, Gori S, Metro G, Pessino A, Pozzessere D, Puglisi F, Tamberi S, Zambelli A, Marino D, Capoluongo E, Cappuzzo F, Cerbelli B, Giannini G, Malapelle U, Mazzuca F, Nuti M, Pruneri G, Simmaco M, Strigari L, Tonini G, Martini N, Botticelli A, ROME trial investigators consortia

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review — 2.25★ (Weak), 0 critical, 3 high issues for “Genomically matched therapy in advanced solid tumors: the randomized phase 2 ROME trial.”

Links back to this Rigor Record.

Αlpha¹ Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Αlpha¹ Editorial · August 15, 2026

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

2.25 / 5

Weak — serious problems found

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern ×2−1★
ClaimsOverstated claim−0.5★
ClaimsEfficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint−0.5★
ClaimsTreatment effect not shown to be clinically meaningful−0.5★
LinksDead data/code link−0.25★

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.39.0Source: full text

Problems surfaced5 types

Numerical inconsistencies1

Values that contradict each other or are impossible for the stated sample: recomputed p-values and test statistics, GRIM/GRIMMER checks on summary numbers, percentages against their own counts, totals against their parts, and estimates against their own confidence intervals.

Internal contradictions in the reported numbersAssessed

Overstated conclusions3

Conclusions that reach past what the paper's own results support — including a significance claim that no longer holds when the statistic is recomputed, and efficacy resting on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint.

Efficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpointAssessed
Treatment effect not shown to be clinically meaningfulAssessed
Conclusions overstated beyond the evidenceAssessed

Broken references and links1

References checked against Crossref, OpenAlex and Retraction Watch for retractions and resolvability, plus declared data and code links probed for whether they resolve to content matching the paper.

Dead data/code linksRecomputed

This Αlpha¹ Rigor Review uses AI Rigor Reviewers trained on a curated corpus of high-fidelity and retracted papers, with expert supervision and curation. It can still make mistakes; verify each finding against the source before relying on it.

The ROME trial is a well-designed, randomized phase 2 study with clear scientific premise, rigorous methodology, and transparent reporting. Minor issues include inconsistent crossover rates and a typo, but these do not undermine the core findings.

Both reviewers classified the study as interventional, and no divergence was noted. The evaluation covered the full text, with N/A for non-applicable items (e.g., animal housing, cell lines). The statistics verification covered only a subset of tests (3 recomputed, all consistent); other statistics remain unverified.

6 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: 1 not fully backed by the presented evidence (unsupported or overstated).

Premise concern: surrogate not validated for clinical benefit; effect size not shown to be clinically meaningful.

Recomputed 3 tests: 3 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 1 recomputed directly from the reported test statistics, 2 via agent-written checks.

2 integrity concerns flagged (0 high).

Reporting

Eight Dimensions8 pass

The introduction cites multiple prior studies (SHIVA, MOSCATO-01, TAPUR, NCI-MATCH, SAFIR02-BREAST) and frameworks (ESCAT, ETAC-S), acknowledging inconsistent outcomes and gaps. The rationale for the trial—evaluating MTB-guided TT versus SoC in a randomized setting—follows logically from the cited evidence. Limitations of prior research (e.g., lack of randomized evidence, variability in actionability) are explicitly addressed.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific premise by citing prior precision oncology trials and frameworks, and logically motivates the ROME trial.

Evidence

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraph 2]

“For instance, although the SHIVA trial did not show progression-free survival (PFS) benefits for off-label TT compared to standard treatments, the MOSCATO-01 trial achieved its endpoint, underscoring the value of broad genomic testing and targeted drug treatments.”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 4]

“The nationwide ROME trial was designed to provide comprehensive genomic profiling and TT for patients with solid tumors across multiple medical oncology units in Italy. This trial aims to evaluate the outcomes of a TT established after discussions in the MTB compared to the standard of care (SoC).”