ArticleMolecular diagnosis & therapy2016
Mutation Yield of a 34-Gene Solid Tumor Panel in Community-Based Tumor Samples.
Article in Molecular diagnosis & therapy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Addressing the challenges of applying precision oncology.NPJ precision oncology · 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
16 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeveral targeted therapies have been approved for treatment of solid tumors. Identification of gene mutations that indicate response to these therapies is rapidly progressing. A 34-gene next-generation sequencing (NGS) panel, developed and validated by us, was evaluated to detect additional mutations in community-based cancer specimens initially sent to our reference laboratory for routine molecular testing.
methodsConsecutive de-identified clinical specimens (n = 121) from melanoma cases (n = 31), lung cancer cases (n = 27), colorectal cancer cases (n = 33), and breast cancer cases (n = 30) were profiled by NGS, and the results were compared with routine molecular testing.
resultsUpon initial mutation testing, 20 % (24/121) were positive. NGS detected ≥1 additional mutation not identified by routine testing in 74 % of specimens (90/121). Of the specimens with additional mutations, 16 harbored mutations in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline genes. These various additional mutations were in gene regions not routinely covered, in genes not routinely tested, and/or present at low allele frequencies. Moreover, NGS yielded no false negatives. Overall, NGS detected mutations in 59 % of the genes (20/34) included in the panel, 75 % of which (15/20) were detected in multiple tumor types. Mutations in TP53 were found in 51 % of tumors tested (62/121). Mutations in at least one other (non-TP53) gene present in the panel were detected in 64 % of cases (77/121).
conclusionThis assay provides improved breadth and sensitivity for profiling clinically relevant genes in these prevalent solid tumor types.
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.