ArticleAmerican journal of clinical pathology2016
Test Feasibility of Next-Generation Sequencing Assays in Clinical Mutation Detection of Small Biopsy and Fine Needle Aspiration Specimens.
Article in American journal of clinical pathology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Idylla™ POLE-POLD1 mutation assay for molecular characterization and risk stratification of endometrial cancers: a retrospective multicenter validation study.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2026Article
- Next-Generation Sequencing Analysis on Image-Guided Biopsy Samples in Early-Stage Lung Cancer: Feasibility Study and Comparison With Surgical Samples.JTO clinical and research reports · 2025Article
- Biopsy Method and Needle Size on Success of Next-Generation Sequencing in NSCLC: A Brief Report.JTO clinical and research reports · 2023Article
- Accuracy of next-generation sequencing for molecular profiling of small specimen of lung cancer: a prospective pilot study of side-by-side comparison.Diagnostic pathology · 2022Article
- Role of Image-Guided Percutaneous Needle Biopsy in the Age of Precision Medicine.Current oncology reports · 2022Review
- Percutaneous Image-Guided Biopsy for a Comprehensive Hybridization Capture-Based Next-Generation Sequencing in Primary Lung Cancer: Safety, Efficacy, and Predictors of Outcome.JTO clinical and research reports · 2022Article
- Co-occurring genetic alterations and primary EGFR T790M mutations detected by NGS in pre-TKI-treated NSCLCs.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2020Article
- Article
- Clinical mutational profiling and categorization of BRAF mutations in melanomas using next generation sequencing.BMC cancer · 2019Article
- Targeted Next-Generation Sequencing Validates the Use of Diagnostic Biopsies as a Suitable Alternative to Resection Material for Mutation Screening in Colorectal Cancer.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2019Article
- Feasibility of genomic profiling with next-generation sequencing using specimens obtained by image-guided percutaneous needle biopsy.Upsala journal of medical sciences · 2019Observational
- Genetic polymorphism in psoriasis and its meaning for the treatment efficacy in the future.Postepy dermatologii i alergologii · 2018Review
- Molecular Screening of Small Biopsy Samples Using Next-Generation Sequencing in Korean Patients with Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: Korean Lung Cancer Consortium (KLCC-13-01).Journal of pathology and translational medicine · 2018Article
- Article
- Molecular Diagnostics for Precision Medicine in Colorectal Cancer: Current Status and Future Perspective.BioMed research international · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate preanalytic factors contributing to failure of next-generation sequencing (NGS) assays.
methodsAmpliSeq Cancer Hotspot Panel was conducted in 1,121 of 1,152 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues submitted to a clinical laboratory, including 493 small biopsy or fine needle aspiration (FNA) specimens (44%) and 25 metastatic bone specimens (2.2%).
resultsSingle nucleotide mutations and/or insertion/deletion mutations were detected in 702 specimens. Thirty-eight specimens (3.4%) were reported as "no results" due to NGS assay failure. Higher failure rates were observed in specimens submitted for lung cancer panel and melanoma panel (3.1% and 3.7% vs 1.0% colorectal cancer panel), metastatic bone specimens (36% vs 2.6% nonbone specimens), referred specimens (5.0% vs 1.8% in-house specimens), and small biopsy and FNA specimens (5.8% and 3.1% vs 0.7% resection/excision specimens). Test feasibility was higher in in-house specimens than referred specimens (99.1% vs 96.9% in resection specimens, 94.4% vs 87.3% in small biopsy specimens, and 94.3% vs 58.8% in FNA specimens).
conclusionsNGS assays demonstrated clinical utility in solid tumor specimens, including those taken by biopsy or FNA. Preanalytic factors identified by this study that may contribute to NGS assay failure highlight the need for pathologists to revisit tissue processing protocols in order to better optimize cancer mutational profiling.
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.