Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25480502›Full record

ArticleHaematologica2015

Targeted next-generation sequencing in chronic lymphocytic leukemia: a high-throughput yet tailored approach will facilitate implementation in a clinical setting.

Lesley-Ann Sutton, Viktor Ljungström, Larry Mansouri, Emma Young, Diego Cortese, Veronika Navrkalova, Jitka Malcikova, Alice F Muggen, Martin Trbusek, Panagiotis Panagiotidis and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Haematologica, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Towards precision medicine in lymphoid malignancies.Journal of internal medicine · 2022
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

17 authors at 9 institutions in 6 countries.

Lesley-Ann SuttonDepartment of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology, Science for Life Laboratory, Uppsala University, Sweden.
Viktor LjungströmDepartment of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology, Science for Life Laboratory, Uppsala University, Sweden.
Larry MansouriDepartment of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology, Science for Life Laboratory, Uppsala University, Sweden.
Emma YoungDepartment of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology, Science for Life Laboratory, Uppsala University, Sweden.
Diego CorteseDepartment of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology, Science for Life Laboratory, Uppsala University, Sweden.
Veronika NavrkalovaCentral European Institute of Technology, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
Jitka MalcikovaCentral European Institute of Technology, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
Alice F MuggenDepartment of Immunology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Martin TrbusekCentral European Institute of Technology, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
Panagiotis PanagiotidisFirst Department of Propaedeutic Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Athens, Greece.
Frederic DaviLaboratory of Hematology and Universite Pierre et Marie Curie, Hopital Pitie-Salpetriere, Paris, France.
Chrysoula BelessiHematology Department, Nikea General Hospital, Pireaus, Greece.
Anton W LangerakDepartment of Immunology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Paolo GhiaUniversità Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Milan, Italy Division of Molecular Oncology and Department of Onco-Hematology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
Sarka PospisilovaCentral European Institute of Technology, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
Kostas StamatopoulosDepartment of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology, Science for Life Laboratory, Uppsala University, Sweden Institute of Applied Biosciences, CERTH, Thessaloniki, Greece Hematology Department and HCT Unit, G. Papanicolaou Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Richard RosenquistDepartment of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology, Science for Life Laboratory, Uppsala University, Sweden richard.rosenquist@igp.uu.se.
Central European Institute of Technology · CZScience for Life Laboratory · SEUppsala University · SEErasmus MC · NLCentre for Research and Technology Hellas · GRGeneral Hospital of Nikea · GRIstituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico San RaffaeleNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens · GRSorbonne Université · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Next-generation sequencing has revealed novel recurrent mutations in chronic lymphocytic leukemia, particularly in patients with aggressive disease. Here, we explored targeted re-sequencing as a novel strategy to assess the mutation status of genes with prognostic potential. To this end, we utilized HaloPlex targeted enrichment technology and designed a panel including nine genes: ATM, BIRC3, MYD88, NOTCH1, SF3B1 and TP53, which have been linked to the prognosis of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and KLHL6, POT1 and XPO1, which are less characterized but were found to be recurrently mutated in various sequencing studies. A total of 188 chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients with poor prognostic features (unmutated IGHV, n=137; IGHV3-21 subset #2, n=51) were sequenced on the HiSeq 2000 and data were analyzed using well-established bioinformatics tools. Using a conservative cutoff of 10% for the mutant allele, we found that 114/180 (63%) patients carried at least one mutation, with mutations in ATM, BIRC3, NOTCH1, SF3B1 and TP53 accounting for 149/177 (84%) of all mutations. We selected 155 mutations for Sanger validation (variant allele frequency, 10-99%) and 93% (144/155) of mutations were confirmed; notably, all 11 discordant variants had a variant allele frequency between 11-27%, hence at the detection limit of conventional Sanger sequencing. Technical precision was assessed by repeating the entire HaloPlex procedure for 63 patients; concordance was found for 77/82 (94%) mutations. In summary, this study demonstrates that targeted next-generation sequencing is an accurate and reproducible technique potentially suitable for routine screening, eventually as a stand-alone test without the need for confirmation by Sanger sequencing.

Indexed as

High-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingMutationAllelesGene ExpressionGene FrequencyHumansLeukemia, Lymphocytic, Chronic, B-CellMyeloid Differentiation Factor 88Neoplasm ProteinsPhosphoproteinsPrognosisReceptor, Notch1Ribonucleoprotein, U2 Small NuclearRNA Splicing FactorsTumor Suppressor Protein p53MYD88 protein, humanMyeloid Differentiation Factor 88Neoplasm ProteinsNOTCH1 protein, humanPhosphoproteinsReceptor, Notch1Ribonucleoprotein, U2 Small NuclearRNA Splicing FactorsSF3B1 protein, humanTP53 protein, humanTumor Suppressor Protein p53

Identifiers

PMID25480502
PMCPMC4349276
OpenAlexW2113240773

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.