ArticleBMC cancer2016
At least two well-spaced samples are needed to genotype a solid tumor.
Article in BMC cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stat3 Tyrosine 705 and Serine 727 Phosphorylation Associate With Clinicopathological Characteristics and Distinct Tumor Cell Phenotypes in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.Pathology oncology research : POR · 2022Article
- How many samples are needed to infer truly clonal mutations from heterogenous tumours?BMC cancer · 2019Article
- Article
- Is It Possible to Develop Cancer Vaccines to Neoantigens, What Are the Major Challenges, and How Can These Be Overcome? Targeting the Right Antigens in the Right Patients.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology · 2018Review
- Evolution of Premalignant Disease.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2017Review
- New insights into the earliest stages of colorectal tumorigenesis.Expert review of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2017Review
- Between-region genetic divergence reflects the mode and tempo of tumor evolution.Nature genetics · 2017Article
- Detecting truly clonal alterations from multi-region profiling of tumours.Scientific reports · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHuman cancers are often sequenced to identify mutations. However, cancers are spatially heterogeneous populations with public mutations in all cells and private mutations in some cells. Without empiric knowledge of how mutations are distributed within a solid tumor it is uncertain whether single or multiple samples adequately sample its heterogeneity.
methodsUsing a cohort of 12 human colorectal tumors with well-validated mutations, the abilities to correctly classify public and private mutations were tested (paired t-test) with one sample or two samples obtained from opposite tumor sides.
resultsTwo samples were significantly better than a single sample for correctly identifying public (99% versus 97%) and private mutations (85% versus 46%). Confounding single sample accuracy was that many private mutations appeared "clonal" in individual samples. Two samples detected the most frequent private mutations in 11 of the 12 tumors.
conclusionsTwo spatially-separated samples efficiently distinguish public from private mutations because private mutations common in one specimen are usually less frequent or absent in another sample. The patch-like private mutation topography in most colorectal tumors inherently limits the information in single tumor samples. The correct identification of public and private mutations may aid efforts to target mutations present in all tumor cells.
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.