Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23810758›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD2013

Comparison of clinical targeted next-generation sequence data from formalin-fixed and fresh-frozen tissue specimens.

David H Spencer, Jennifer K Sehn, Haley J Abel, Mark A Watson, John D Pfeifer, Eric J Duncavage

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 101 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
101citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

101 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. A Clinician's Guide to Bioinformatics for Next-Generation Sequencing.Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer · 2023
    Review
  20. Article

41 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

David H SpencerDepartment of Pathology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Jennifer K Sehn
Haley J Abel
Mark A Watson
John D Pfeifer
Eric J Duncavage

Funding

Washington University Center for Cellular ImagingP30CA091842 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI AIMEE S JAMES · 2001 to 2026
$128.0M
Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences (UL1)UL1RR024992 · NCRR · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI EVANOFF, BRADLEY A · 2007 to 2011
$45.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA091842NCI NIH HHS P30 CA91842NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR024992NCRR NIH HHS UL1RR024992
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has emerged as a powerful technique for the detection of genetic variants in the clinical laboratory. NGS can be performed using DNA from FFPE tissue, but it is unknown whether such specimens are truly equivalent to unfixed tissue for NGS applications. To address this question, we performed hybridization-capture enrichment and multiplexed Illumina NGS for 27 cancer-related genes using DNA from 16 paired fresh-frozen and routine FFPE lung adenocarcinoma specimens and conducted extensive comparisons between the sequence data from each sample type. This analysis revealed small but detectable differences between FFPE and frozen samples. Compared with frozen samples, NGS data from FFPE samples had smaller library insert sizes, greater coverage variability, and an increase in C to T transitions that was most pronounced at CpG dinucleotides, suggesting interplay between DNA methylation and formalin-induced changes; however, the error rate, library complexity, enrichment performance, and coverage statistics were not significantly different. Comparison of base calls between paired samples demonstrated concordances of >99.99%, with 96.8% agreement in the single-nucleotide variants detected and >98% accuracy of NGS data when compared with genotypes from an orthogonal single-nucleotide polymorphism array platform. This study demonstrates that routine processing of FFPE samples has a detectable but negligible effect on NGS data and that these samples can be a reliable substrate for clinical NGS testing.

Indexed as

High-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansPolymorphism, Single NucleotideReproducibility of ResultsSpecimen Handling

Identifiers

PMID23810758
PMCPMC4912568

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.