ArticlePloS one2016
Genomic Characterization and Comparison of Multi-Regional and Pooled Tumor Biopsy Specimens.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Article
- The Clinical Utility of Droplet Digital PCR for Profiling Circulating Tumor DNA in Breast Cancer Patients.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Liquid Biopsy and Tissue Biopsy Comparison with Digital PCR and IHC/FISH for HER2 Amplification Detection in Breast Cancer Patients.Journal of Cancer · 2022Article
- Prospective clinical trial testing COXEN-based gene expression models of chemosensitivity in dogs with spontaneous osteosarcoma.Cancer chemotherapy and pharmacology · 2021Article
- Temporal stability of MGMT promoter methylation in glioblastoma patients undergoing STUPP protocol.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2018Article
- Mechanisms and clinical implications of tumor heterogeneity and convergence on recurrent phenotypes.Journal of molecular medicine (Berlin, Germany) · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A single tumor biopsy specimen is typically used in cancer genome studies. However, it may represent incompletely the underlying mutational and transcriptional profiles of tumor biology. Multi-regional biopsies have the advantage of increased sensitivity for genomic profiling, but they are not cost-effective. The concept of an alternative method such as the pooling of multiple biopsies is a challenge. In order to determine if the pooling of distinct regions is representative at the genomic and transcriptome level, we performed sequencing of four regional samples and pooled samples for four cancer types including colon, stomach, kidney and liver cancer. Subsequently, a comparative analysis was conducted to explore differences in mutations and gene expression profiles between multiple regional biopsies and pooled biopsy for each tumor. Our analysis revealed a marginal level of regional difference in detected variants, but in those with low allele frequency, considerable discrepancies were observed. In conclusion, sequencing pooled samples has the benefit of detecting many variants with moderate allele frequency that occur in partial regions, but it is not applicable for detecting low-frequency mutations that require deep sequencing.
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.