Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27678269›Full record

ReviewVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2017

Integration of next-generation sequencing in clinical diagnostic molecular pathology laboratories for analysis of solid tumours; an expert opinion on behalf of IQN Path ASBL.

Zandra C Deans, Jose Luis Costa, Ian Cree, Els Dequeker, Anders Edsjö, Shirley Henderson, Michael Hummel, Marjolijn Jl Ligtenberg, Marco Loddo, Jose Carlos Machado and 13 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

53 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Observational
  8. Internal Overview of Prostatic Cancer Cases and Quality ofDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

23 authors.

Zandra C DeansUK NEQAS for Molecular Genetics, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH16 4SA, UK. sandi.deans@ed.ac.uk.
Jose Luis Costai3S Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde/IPATIMUP Institute of Molecular Pathology and Immunology, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Ian CreeDepartment of Pathology, University Hospital Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, CV2 2DX, UK.
Els DequekerBiomedical Quality Assurance Research Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven-University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Anders EdsjöClinical Pathology, Laboratory Medicine, Medical Services, Region Skåne, Lund, Sweden.
Shirley HendersonGenomics England, Queen Mary University of London, Dawson Hall, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK.
Michael HummelInstitute of Pathology, Berlin, Germany and the DGP, German Society of Pathology, Charite, University Medicine Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Marjolijn Jl LigtenbergDepartment of Pathology and Department of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Marco LoddoOncologica UK Ltd, Suite 15-16, The Science Village, Chesterford Research Park, Cambridge, CB10 1XL, UK.
Jose Carlos Machadoi3S Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde/IPATIMUP Institute of Molecular Pathology and Immunology, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Antonio MarchettiCenter of Predictive Molecular Medicine, CeSI-MeT, University of Chieti, Chieti, Italy.
Katherine MarquisOncologica UK Ltd, Suite 15-16, The Science Village, Chesterford Research Park, Cambridge, CB10 1XL, UK.
Joanne MasonGenomics England, Queen Mary University of London, Dawson Hall, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK.
Nicola NormannoCell Biology and Biotherapy Unit, Istituto Nazionale Tumouri "Fondazione Giovanni Pascale" IRCCS, Naples, Italy.
Etienne RouleauDepartment of Medical Biology and Pathology, Genetic and Pathology Molecular Service, Gustave Roussy, 114 Rue Edouard Vaillant, 94800, Villejuif, France.
Ed SchuuringDepartment of Pathology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Keeda-Marie SnelsonOncologica UK Ltd, Suite 15-16, The Science Village, Chesterford Research Park, Cambridge, CB10 1XL, UK.
Erik ThunnissenPathology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Bastiaan TopsDepartment of Pathology and Department of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Gareth WilliamsOncologica UK Ltd, Suite 15-16, The Science Village, Chesterford Research Park, Cambridge, CB10 1XL, UK.
Han van KriekenDepartment of Pathology and Department of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Jacqueline A HallInternational Quality Network for Pathology (IQN Path) Association Sans But Lucratif (A.S.B.L), 17 Boulevard Royal, L2449, Luxembourg City, Luxembourg.
IQN Path ASBL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The clinical demand for mutation detection within multiple genes from a single tumour sample requires molecular diagnostic laboratories to develop rapid, high-throughput, highly sensitive, accurate and parallel testing within tight budget constraints. To meet this demand, many laboratories employ next-generation sequencing (NGS) based on small amplicons. Building on existing publications and general guidance for the clinical use of NGS and learnings from germline testing, the following guidelines establish consensus standards for somatic diagnostic testing, specifically for identifying and reporting mutations in solid tumours. These guidelines cover the testing strategy, implementation of testing within clinical service, sample requirements, data analysis and reporting of results. In conjunction with appropriate staff training and international standards for laboratory testing, these consensus standards for the use of NGS in molecular pathology of solid tumours will assist laboratories in implementing NGS in clinical services.

Indexed as

Genetic Predisposition to DiseaseHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingPathology, MolecularHumansMutationNeoplasmsBest practiceMolecular pathologyNext-generation sequencingQualitySolid tumours

Identifiers

PMID27678269
PMCPMC5243883

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.