ArticlePloS one2015
Flexible lab-tailored cut-offs for suitability of formalin-fixed tumor samples for diagnostic mutational analyses.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Prognostic Characterization of Higher-Grade Meningiomas: A Histopathological Score to Predict Progression and Outcome.Journal of neuropathology and experimental neurology · 2019Article
- ALK expression favorably impacts the prognosis ofOncology letters · 2018Article
- Pathological prognostic markers in central nervous system solitary fibrous tumour/hemangiopericytoma: Evidence from a small series.PloS one · 2018Article
- Extreme assay sensitivity in molecular diagnostics further unveils intratumour heterogeneity in metastatic colorectal cancer as well as artifactual low-frequency mutations in the KRAS gene.British journal of cancer · 2017Article
- Liquoral liquid biopsy in neoplastic meningitis enables molecular diagnosis and mutation tracking: a proof of concept.Neuro-oncology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The selection of proper tissues from formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded tumors before diagnostic molecular testing is responsibility of the pathologist and represents a crucial step to produce reliable test results. The international guidelines suggest two cut-offs, one for the percentage and one for the number of tumor cells, in order to enrich the tumor content before DNA extraction. The aim of the present work was two-fold: to evaluate to what extent a low percentage or absolute number of tumor cells can be qualified for somatic mutation testing; and to determine how assay sensitivities can guide pathologists towards a better definition of morphology-based adequacy cut-offs. We tested 1797 tumor specimens from melanomas, colorectal and lung adenocarcinomas. Respectively, their BRAF, K-RAS and EGFR genes were analyzed at specific exons by mutation-enriched PCR, pyrosequencing, direct sequencing and real-time PCR methods. We demonstrate that poorly cellular specimens do not modify the frequency distribution of either mutated or wild-type DNA samples nor that of specific mutations. This observation suggests that currently recommended cut-offs for adequacy of specimens to be processed for molecular assays seem to be too much stringent in a laboratory context that performs highly sensitive routine analytical methods. In conclusion, new cut-offs are needed based on test sensitivities and documented tumor heterogeneity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.