Genetic screening also helps doctors decide which treatments to avoid if a patient’s genes suggest resistance or a high risk of side effects. In addition, hospitals use genetic results to determine the dose and combination of drugs, monitor how well a treatment is working, and adjust the care plan if the cancer changes over time. By applying genetic screening this way, hospitals can provide more precise, effective, and personalized treatment for each patient rather than relying on trial-and-error methods. Relying on trial-and-error methods is a major problem because it wastes valuable time, which is especially dangerous with fast-growing cancers. Trying multiple treatments of a standardized treatment can allow the cancer to spread or become harder to control. Trial-and-error may result in unnecessary side effects, weaken their immune system, and increase emotional and physical stress. In addition, multiple runs of standardized treatments will result in more money being drained for a less sufficient result.

The method for applying genetic screening in cancer treatment involves several key steps. First, a patient provides a sample, typically blood, saliva, or a biopsy of the tumour. This sample is then sent to a lab, where DNA is extracted and analyzed for specific genetic mutations or biomarkers associated with cancer. Using techniques like Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS), the genetic material is examined for mutations that could influence the cancer's growth, spread, and response to treatments. Once the analysis is complete, the results are reviewed by oncologists, who use the findings to select targeted therapies that are specifically designed to address the genetic mutations identified. These therapies are often more effective and have fewer side effects compared to traditional treatments. Additionally, genetic screening can help doctors assess the cancer's potential aggressiveness and predict how it might respond to different treatments, enabling more personalized care plans.

Recent research strongly supports the use of genetic screening and next-generation sequencing (NGS) to improve cancer treatment precision and reduce reliance on trial-and-error methods. Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) allows clinicians to identify actionable mutations across multiple cancer-related genes, significantly improving therapy matching in advanced solid tumors (1,2). Large real-world analyses show that patients receiving genomically matched therapies demonstrate improved response rates and progression-free survival compared to non-matched treatment approaches (3). Pharmacogenomic testing further enables physicians to avoid drugs that a patient is genetically unlikely to respond to or that may cause severe toxicity, thereby reducing unnecessary side effects and immune suppression (4). The use of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and liquid biopsy technologies allows dynamic monitoring of tumor evolution and early detection of resistance mutations, enabling faster treatment adjustments before clinical deterioration occurs (5,6). International oncology guidelines now recommend routine NGS testing in advanced cancers where targeted therapies are available, reinforcing genomic screening as a standard-of-care approach rather than an experimental option (7,8). However, research highlights significant disparities due to underrepresentation of diverse populations in genomic databases, which may limit the predictive accuracy of current screening tools and reduce equitable access to precision oncology (9). Emerging multi-omic approaches integrating genomic, transcriptomic, and longitudinal clinical data further enhance predictive modeling of tumor behavior and treatment response (10,11). Additionally, molecular tumor boards (MTBs) have been shown to improve translation of genomic data into actionable treatment plans and correlate with better patient outcomes compared to physician-directed treatment alone (12,13). Finally, advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning are being developed to optimize personalized cancer therapy by continuously adapting treatment recommendations based on patient-specific genomic and outcome data (14,15). Together, these studies demonstrate that genetic screening significantly improves treatment accuracy, reduces harmful delays associated with standardized trial-and-error therapies, and represents a critical pathway toward more effective, personalized, and equitable cancer care.

Applying genetic screening to personalize cancer treatment isn’t just scientifically promising; it’s backed by a large amount of evidence showing significant clinical benefit across diverse cancer types, particularly in advanced or hard-to-treat cases (1, 16, 20). For example, in a large sample of 1,166 advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients, comprehensive genomic profiling identified actionable mutations in 67 % of cases, and patients who received therapies matched to these genomic targets had a median progression free survival (PFS) of 9.0 months compared with 4.9 months for unmatched therapy (an \~83 % improvement) as well as a longer overall survival (3.9 years vs 2.5 years) than patients on conventional treatment (1, 13, 17). Broad reviews of nearly 10,000 advanced cancer patients also show that next-generation sequencing guided targeted therapies can improve PFS by approximately 35% to 40% compared with standard treatments, highlighting their widespread clinical relevance across tumour types (3, 18). In real clinical settings beyond single trials, genomic profiling reveals actionable genetic changes in up to 88 % of patients with advanced solid tumours, with roughly 47 % having druggable alterations that can directly influence treatment decisions (1, 2, 8, 16). Even when not all patients receive matched therapy, studies show that approximately 40% of patients who undergo genomic testing ultimately receive genomics-informed treatment, and these patients often experience longer times before needing a new therapy, which correlates with better outcomes (12, 13, 17). Meta-analyses comparing personalized treatment strategies with non-personalized approaches further confirm that personalized oncology nearly triples objective response rates (31 % vs 10.5 %), nearly doubles PFS, and extends overall survival (13.7 months vs 8.9 months) across many cancer types, demonstrating the broad and quantifiable benefit of tailoring therapy to tumour genetics (3, 18). Taken together, this body of data reinforces that genetic screening is not just conceptually valuable but statistically linked to higher rates of targeted therapy use, improved response and survival outcomes, and more informed and efficient treatment pathways compared to traditional one-size-fits-all oncology approaches (4, 19, 20).

In conclusion, applying genetic screening to personalize cancer treatment is a powerful step forward in modern medicine because it makes treatment more precise, more effective, and safer for patients. Instead of using a one-size-fits-all approach, doctors can now use genetic data to understand the exact mutations driving a person’s cancer and choose therapies that specifically target those changes. Research from trusted organizations such as the National Cancer Institute and the World Health Organization shows that patients who receive genetically matched treatments often experience higher response rates, longer survival times, and fewer severe side effects compared to traditional chemotherapy alone. Statistics from large clinical studies demonstrate significant improvements in progression-free survival and overall survival when treatments are based on tumour genetics. Overall, the evidence clearly supports that genetic screening improves patient outcomes, reduces unnecessary treatments, and represents the future of cancer care. As technology continues to advance and become more accessible, personalized medicine has the potential to save more lives and transform how we fight cancer worldwide.

1. Zehir, A., Benayed, R., Shah, R. H., et al. (2017). Mutational landscape of metastatic cancer revealed from prospective clinical sequencing of 10,000 patients. Nature Medicine, 23(6), 703–713. https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.4333
2. Mosele, F., Remon, J., Mateo, J., et al. (2020). Recommendations for the use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) for patients with metastatic cancers: A report from the ESMO Precision Medicine Working Group. Annals of Oncology, 31(11), 1491–1505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annonc.2020.07.014
3. Marquart, J., Chen, E. Y., & Prasad, V. (2018). Estimation of the percentage of US patients with cancer who benefit from genome-driven oncology. JAMA Oncology, 4(8), 1093–1098. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.1660
4. Relling, M. V., & Evans, W. E. (2015). Pharmacogenomics in the clinic. Nature, 526(7573), 343–350. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature15817
5. Wan, J. C. M., Massie, C., Garcia-Corbacho, J., et al. (2017). Liquid biopsies come of age: Towards implementation of circulating tumour DNA. Nature Reviews Cancer, 17(4), 223–238. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc.2017.7
6. Abbosh, C., Birkbak, N. J., Wilson, G. A., et al. (2017). Phylogenetic ctDNA analysis depicts early-stage lung cancer evolution. Nature, 545(7655), 446–451. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature22364
7. Dienstmann, R., Rodon, J., Barretina, J., & Tabernero, J. (2013). Genomic medicine frontier in human solid tumors: Prospects and challenges. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 31(15), 1874–1884. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2012.45.2263
8. Chakravarty, D., Gao, J., Phillips, S., et al. (2017). OncoKB: A precision oncology knowledge base. JCO Precision Oncology, 1, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1200/PO.17.00011
9. Sirugo, G., Williams, S. M., & Tishkoff, S. A. (2019). The missing diversity in human genetic studies. Cell, 177(1), 26–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2019.02.048
10. Hasin, Y., Seldin, M., & Lusis, A. (2017). Multi-omics approaches to disease. Genome Biology, 18(1), 83. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-017-1215-1
11. Huang, S., Chaudhary, K., & Garmire, L. X. (2017). More is better: Recent progress in multi-omics data integration methods. Frontiers in Genetics, 8, 84. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2017.00084
12. Rolfo, C., Manca, P., Salgado, R., et al. (2018). Multidisciplinary molecular tumour board: A tool to improve clinical practice and selection accrual for clinical trials in patients with cancer. ESMO Open, 3(5), e000398. https://doi.org/10.1136/esmoopen-2018-000398
13. Kato, S., Kim, K. H., Lim, H. J., et al. (2020). Real-world data from a molecular tumor board demonstrates improved outcomes with genomically matched therapy. Oncologist, 25(5), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0673
14. Topol, E. J. (2019). High-performance medicine: The convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nature Medicine, 25(1), 44–56. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-018-0300-7
15. Yu, K. H., Beam, A. L., & Kohane, I. S. (2018). Artificial intelligence in healthcare. Nature Biomedical Engineering, 2(10), 719–731. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41551-018-0305-z
16. The Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. (2013). The Cancer Genome Atlas pan-cancer analysis project. Nature Genetics, 45(10), 1113–1120. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.2764
17. Tsimberidou, A. M., Iskander, N. G., Hong, D. S., & Wheler, J. J. (2012). Personalized medicine in a phase I clinical trials program: The MD Anderson Cancer Center initiative. Clinical Cancer Research, 18(22), 6373–6383. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-1627
18. Schwaederle, M., Zhao, M., Lee, J. J., Lazar, V., Leyland-Jones, B., Schilsky, R. L., & Kurzrock, R. (2015). Impact of precision medicine in diverse cancers: A meta-analysis of phase II clinical trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 33(32), 3817–3825. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.61.5997
19. National Cancer Institute. (2023). Targeted cancer therapies. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/types/targeted-therapies
20. World Health Organization. (2023). Cancer fact sheet. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cancer

Researchers and institutions that have contributed to the field of precision oncology. Scientists are working on cutting-edge genetic screening technologies. Family, teachers, and mentors for their guidance and support.