Broad versus limited gene panels to guide treatment in patients with advanced solid tumors: a randomized controlled trial.

Name: Αlpha¹ Rigor Record — Broad versus limited gene panels to guide treatment in patients with advanced solid tumors: a randomized controlled trial.
Item: Broad versus limited gene panels to guide treatment in patients with advanced solid tumors: a randomized controlled trial.
Rating: 59
Author: Αlpha¹

Trédan O, Pouessel D, Penel N, Chabaud S, Gomez-Roca C, Delord JP, Pannier D, Brahmi M, Fabbro M, Garcia ME, Larrieu-Ciron D, Ray-Coquard I, Viala M, Italiano A, Tosi D, Cassier P, Dufresne A, Attignon V, Boyault S, Treilleux I, Viari A, Pérol D, Blay JY

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review — 3.75★ (Adequate), 0 critical, 3 high issues for “Broad versus limited gene panels to guide treatment in patients with advanced solid tumors: a randomized controlled 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

3.75 / 5

Adequate — real issues to address

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern−0.5★
CitationsUnresolved reference ×2−0.5★
StatisticsPrinted percentage does not match its own count (capped) ×2−0.25★

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

Not verified in this report

Declared data/code links were not checked for liveness or content.

Problems surfaced3 types

Numerical inconsistencies2

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.

Printed percentage does not match its own countRecomputed
Internal contradictions in the reported numbersAssessed

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.

References not resolvable to a published paperRecomputed

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 paper is a well-conducted multicenter randomized controlled trial with rigorous design, clear reporting of ethics, demographics, and statistical methods, and transparent data availability. Minor reporting gaps include the lack of an explicit CONSORT statement and a few copyedit issues such as a duplicate row in Table 1 and unspecified software versions.

Both reviewers classified the study as interventional, which is consistent with the randomized controlled trial design. The evaluation covered all eight dimensions; several sub-criteria were marked not applicable (e.g., animal housing, cell line authentication) due to the human clinical trial context. The statistics verification component checked only a subset of tests, and the two inconsistent findings were not specified, so they were not treated as demonstrable errors.

3 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: all adequately supported.

Recomputed 2 tests: 2 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 2 via agent-written checks. 2 printed percentages that do not match their own count.

1 integrity concern flagged (0 high).

Reporting

Eight Dimensions8 pass

The introduction cites prior work (ProfiLER-01, SHIVA, MPACT, MATCH, 100,000 Genomes Project) and acknowledges limitations such as low MBRT initiation rates and unclear clinical impact of large panels. The rationale for comparing F1CDX (324 genes) versus CTL (87 genes) is clearly stated. The study addresses prior limitations by using a randomized design and paired data from both panels.

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 genomic profiling programs and trials, and logically links the rationale to the study objective of comparing broader versus limited gene panels.

Evidence

paraphrase[Main, paragraph 1]

“We previously reported the use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) with panels of 59–69 genes and microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization in the ProfiLER-01 study. Molecular profiling in enrolled patients with metastatic cancer allowed proposing MBRTs in 27% of the patients, including 6% in whom an MBRT was initiated.”

direct quote[Main, paragraph 2]

“In an attempt to assess this impact, the multicenter prospective randomized study ProfiLER-02 aimed to evaluate the added value of a larger number of screened genomic biomarkers from the gene panel Foundation OneCDX (F1CDX panel, 324 genes) compared to our home-based molecular profiling panel (CTL panel with limited biomarker detection, 87 genes) to identify more MBRTs in patients with advanced cancer.”