Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25538175›Full record

ArticleAnnals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology2015

Impact of centralization on aCGH-based genomic profiles for precision medicine in oncology.

F Commo, C Ferté, J C Soria, S H Friend, F André, J Guinney

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Intra-tumor genetic heterogeneity in rectal cancer.Laboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology · 2016
    Article
  5. Article
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.

F CommoSage Bionetworks, Seattle, USA INSERM U981, Gustave Roussy, University Paris XI, Villejuif.
C FertéSage Bionetworks, Seattle, USA INSERM U981, Gustave Roussy, University Paris XI, Villejuif Department of Medical Oncology, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.
J C SoriaINSERM U981, Gustave Roussy, University Paris XI, Villejuif Department of Medical Oncology, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.
S H FriendSage Bionetworks, Seattle, USA.
F AndréINSERM U981, Gustave Roussy, University Paris XI, Villejuif Department of Medical Oncology, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.
J GuinneySage Bionetworks, Seattle, USA justin.guinney@sagebase.org.

Funding

Integrating cancer datasets for predictive model development and trainingU54CA149237 · NCI · SAGE BIONETWORKS · PI FRIEND, STEPHEN HENRY · 2010 to 2014
$8.9M
NCI NIH HHS U54CA149237
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundComparative genomic hybridization (CGH) arrays are increasingly used in personalized medicine programs to identify gene copy number aberrations (CNAs) that may be used to guide clinical decisions made during molecular tumor boards. However, analytical processes such as the centralization step may profoundly affect CGH array results and therefore may adversely affect outcomes in the precision medicine context. PATIENTS AND

methodsThe effect of three different centralization methods: median, maximum peak, alternative peak, were evaluated on three datasets: (i) the NCI60 cell lines panel, (ii) the Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia (CCLE) panel, and (iii) the patients enrolled in prospective molecular screening trials (SAFIR-01 n = 283, MOSCATO-01 n = 309), and compared with karyotyping, drug sensitivity, and patient-drug matching, respectively.

resultsUsing the NCI60 cell lines panel, the profiles generated by the alternative peak method were significantly closer to the cell karyotypes than those generated by the other centralization strategies (P < 0.05). Using the CCLE dataset, selected genes (ERBB2, EGFR) were better or equally correlated to the IC50 of their companion drug (lapatinib, erlotinib), when applying the alternative centralization. Finally, focusing on 24 actionable genes, we observed as many as 7.1% (SAFIR-01) and 6.8% (MOSCATO-01) of patients originally not oriented to a specific treatment, but who could have been proposed a treatment based on the alternative peak centralization method.

conclusionThe centralization method substantially affects the call detection of CGH profiles and may thus impact precision medicine approaches. Among the three methods described, the alternative peak method addresses limitations associated with existing approaches.

Indexed as

GenomicsCohort StudiesComparative Genomic HybridizationGene Expression ProfilingHumansPrecision MedicineaCGHcomparative genomic hybridizationprecision medicinetargeted therapy

Identifiers

PMID25538175
PMCPMC4343013

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.