Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28453708›Full record

ArticleAnnals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology2017

Towards a global cancer knowledge network: dissecting the current international cancer genomic sequencing landscape.

D J Vis, J Lewin, R G Liao, M Mao, F Andre, R L Ward, F Calvo, B T Teh, A A Camargo, B M Knoppers and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
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

16 authors.

D J VisNetherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
J LewinPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada.
R G LiaoGlobal Alliance for Genomics and Health, Broad Institute, Cambridge, USA.
M MaoYonsei Cancer Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
F AndreINSERM U981, Université Paris Sud, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.
R L WardResearch, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
F CalvoCancer Core Europe, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.
B T TehNational Cancer Centre, Singapore.
A A CamargoOncology, Hospital Sírio Libanês, São Paulo, Brazil.
B M KnoppersCentre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
C L SawyersMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre, New York, USA.
L F A WesselsNetherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
M LawlerCentre for Cancer Research and Cell Biology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
L L SiuPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada.
E VoestNetherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Clinical Working Group of the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile next generation sequencing has enhanced our understanding of the biological basis of malignancy, current knowledge on global practices for sequencing cancer samples is limited. To address this deficiency, we developed a survey to provide a snapshot of current sequencing activities globally, identify barriers to data sharing and use this information to develop sustainable solutions for the cancer research community.

methodsA multi-item survey was conducted assessing demographics, clinical data collection, genomic platforms, privacy/ethics concerns, funding sources and data sharing barriers for sequencing initiatives globally. Additionally, respondents were asked as to provide the primary intent of their initiative (clinical diagnostic, research or combination).

resultsOf 107 initiatives invited to participate, 59 responded (response rate = 55%). Whole exome sequencing (P = 0.03) and whole genome sequencing (P = 0.01) were utilized less frequently in clinical diagnostic than in research initiatives. Procedures to identify cancer-specific variants were heterogeneous, with bioinformatics pipelines employing different mutation calling/variant annotation algorithms. Measurement of treatment efficacy varied amongst initiatives, with time on treatment (57%) and RECIST (53%) being the most common; however, other parameters were also employed. Whilst 72% of initiatives indicated data sharing, its scope varied, with a number of restrictions in place (e.g. transfer of raw data). The largest perceived barriers to data harmonization were the lack of financial support (P < 0.01) and bioinformatics concerns (e.g. lack of interoperability) (P = 0.02). Capturing clinical data was more likely to be perceived as a barrier to data sharing by larger initiatives than by smaller initiatives (P = 0.01).

conclusionsThese results identify the main barriers, as perceived by the cancer sequencing community, to effective sharing of cancer genomic and clinical data. They highlight the need for greater harmonization of technical, ethical and data capture processes in cancer sample sequencing worldwide, in order to support effective and responsible data sharing for the benefit of patients.

Indexed as

Genetic Association StudiesDatabases, GeneticDNA Mutational AnalysisExome SequencingGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenome, HumanHumansMolecular Sequence AnnotationNeoplasmsSurveys and Questionnairescancerdata sharinggenomicsmolecular profilingsurvey

Identifiers

PMID28453708
PMCPMC5406763

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.