{
  "status_code": 200,
  "request": {
    "project_description": "Comprehensive genomic profiling/NGS in solid cancers.",
    "research_questions": [
      "What is the incidence and prevalence of advanced cancers in Europe and other key jurisdictions?\n-   Focus on France, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, UK; also include data for rest of Europe and Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Mexico, Canada.",
      "What are EMA-approved and ESMO guideline-recommended biomarker-guided treatments in advanced cancer types?\n-   Focus on the use of genomic testing in non-small-cell lung cancer, colorectal cancer, malignant melanoma, ovarian cancer and breast cancer, to reflect the different number and type of biomarkers associated with each type of malignant disease",
      "What are the types of precision medicine approaches in advanced cancers in Europe (that is, finding treatments that are effective for specific genomic biomarkers in a solid tumor)?\n-   Targeted therapies for specific cancer types\n-   Tissue-agnostic (pan-cancer) therapies\n-   Multi-tumor type targeted therapies\n-   Biomarker-based immunotherapy approaches\n-   Emerging molecularly targeted therapies and ongoing clinical trials",
      "What are the unmet needs with current practice of genomic testing in advanced cancers in Europe?\n-   What are the existing technologies for genomic testing?\n-   What are the technology requirements for identification of specific types of genomic aberrations?\n-   What are the key unmet needs in genomic testing workup approaches in current clinical practice?\n-   What are the challenges faced by people trying to implement genomic testing for rate mutations?",
      "What is the clinical utility of comprehensive genome profiling (CGP)?\n-   How far does CGP offer broader coverage of medically necessary biomarkers than more traditional methods of identifying mutations, such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR), chromosomal microarray (CMA) \u00c2\u00a0or small gene panel assays?\n-   Is the accuracy of CGP higher than traditional approaches in detecting biomarkers?\n-   Does the use of CGP improve patient outcomes, for example, do patients respond better to, or live longer with, therapies that target the patient's specific mutation?\n-   Does the use of CGP mean that fewer biopsy samples are needed?\n-   Does the use of CGP increase the number of patients who are eligible to be enrolled in clinical trials of new targeted therapies?",
      "Economic impact\n-   What is the budget impact of adopting CGP compared with traditional genetic testing?\n-   What is the cost-effectiveness of CGP?"
    ],
    "criterion_type": "exclude",
    "mock": false
  },
  "response": {
    "criteria": [
      {
        "category": "Population",
        "text": "Non-solid or hematologic cancers",
        "description": "Exclude studies focused exclusively on hematologic (blood) cancers or non-malignant diseases.",
        "criterion_type": "exclude",
        "confidence": 0.98,
        "rationale": "The review concerns genomic profiling in solid tumors specifically; inclusion of non-solid cancers does not address the core research questions.",
        "title_abstract_assessable": true
      },
      {
        "category": "Study Design",
        "text": "Non-original research articles",
        "description": "Exclude reviews, editorials, letters, commentaries, protocols, and meeting abstracts without primary data.",
        "criterion_type": "exclude",
        "confidence": 0.95,
        "rationale": "The focus is on primary evidence relating to genomic testing; non-original research does not provide new data or clear insights for the main questions.",
        "title_abstract_assessable": true
      },
      {
        "category": "Publication Type",
        "text": "Animal or preclinical studies",
        "description": "Exclude studies using animal models or in vitro systems (cell lines, organoids) without human clinical data.",
        "criterion_type": "exclude",
        "confidence": 0.95,
        "rationale": "The review addresses clinical implementation, utility, and effectiveness in human cancers.",
        "title_abstract_assessable": true
      },
      {
        "category": "Other",
        "text": "Articles not in English",
        "description": "Exclude publications that are not available in English.",
        "criterion_type": "exclude",
        "confidence": 0.9,
        "rationale": "For feasibility and consistency, the review is restricted to English-language literature.",
        "title_abstract_assessable": true
      },
      {
        "category": "Intervention/Exposure",
        "text": "No genomic profiling or NGS",
        "description": "Exclude studies that do not report on next-generation sequencing (NGS) or comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) as either main or comparator interventions.",
        "criterion_type": "exclude",
        "confidence": 0.98,
        "rationale": "All research questions focus on technologies and approaches related to genomic profiling/NGS.",
        "title_abstract_assessable": true
      },
      {
        "category": "Other",
        "text": "Case reports or case series only",
        "description": "Exclude single case reports or very small case series (<10 patients).",
        "criterion_type": "exclude",
        "confidence": 0.85,
        "rationale": "Such studies provide insufficient data on incidence, prevalence, unmet need, or economic impact.",
        "title_abstract_assessable": true
      },
      {
        "category": "Population",
        "text": "Pediatric cancers (<18 years)",
        "description": "Exclude studies limited exclusively to pediatric populations (age <18 years).",
        "criterion_type": "exclude",
        "confidence": 0.88,
        "rationale": "The review focus is adult advanced solid tumors. Genomic profiling, indications, and clinical implications differ for pediatric versus adult cancers.",
        "title_abstract_assessable": true
      },
      {
        "category": "Other",
        "text": "Published before 2013",
        "description": "Exclude studies published before 2013 (approximate era of clinical CGP/NGS implementation).",
        "criterion_type": "exclude",
        "confidence": 0.8,
        "rationale": "Major adoption of NGS and CGP in clinical practice began after 2012; older studies are less relevant for current technology and guidelines.",
        "title_abstract_assessable": true
      },
      {
        "category": "Other",
        "text": "Non-European and non-listed regions",
        "description": "Exclude studies exclusively reporting data from regions outside Europe and specified jurisdictions (Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Mexico, Canada).",
        "criterion_type": "exclude",
        "confidence": 0.92,
        "rationale": "Research questions specify a focus on Europe and certain global jurisdictions to inform regional practice and policy.",
        "title_abstract_assessable": true
      }
    ]
  }
}