Nationwide descriptive analysis benchmarks RET fusion frequency in Japanese routine practice, indicating platform variability.
Background: RET fusion is an actionable tumor-agnostic biomarker, but its observed frequency in routine comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) may vary across testing platforms and clinical contexts. We conducted a nationwide descriptive analysis to benchmark observed RET fusion frequency in Japanese routine practice. Methods: This retrospective descriptive study used anonymized aggregated data from the Center for Cancer Genomics and Advanced Therapeutics (C-CAT), including CGP-tested cases through 31 March 2025. Observed RET fusion frequency was summarized overall, across five standardized CGP platforms, across 12 prespecified organ groups, and in pooled tissue-based versus liquid-based comparisons. Exact binomial 95% confidence intervals were calculated to provide descriptive precision for low-frequency estimates. Results: Among 97,343 cases, 257 were RET-positive, corresponding to an overall observed RET fusion frequency of 0.26%. Platform-specific frequencies were 0.29% (192/66,992) for FoundationOne CDx, 0.28% (42/14,878) for FoundationOne Liquid CDx, 0.14% (6/4235) for GenMineTOP, 0.16% (15/9196) for NCC oncopanel, and 0.10% (2/2042) for Guardant360. Thoracic tumors showed the highest observed frequency (1.39%, 94/6740), followed by head and neck/thyroid tumors (1.04%, 42/4030). In a crude pooled comparison not adjusted for organ mix or clinical context, tissue-based and liquid-based CGP yielded numerically similar crude pooled frequencies of 0.265% (213/80,423) and 0.260% (44/16,920), respectively. Conclusions: This nationwide analysis benchmarks how RET-positive findings are surfaced to clinicians across heterogeneous routine CGP implementations in Japan. The data support platform-aware interpretation of RET results in practice, but should not be construed as biologic prevalence estimates or comparative assay performance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kajiura et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: