Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28949453›Full record

ArticleMolecular oncology2016

Somatic mutation detection using various targeted detection assays in paired samples of circulating tumor DNA, primary tumor and metastases from patients undergoing resection of colorectal liver metastases.

Nick Beije, Jean C Helmijr, Marjolein J A Weerts, Corine M Beaufort, Matthew Wiggin, Andre Marziali, Cornelis Verhoef, Stefan Sleijfer, Maurice P H M Jansen, John W M Martens

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Biomolecules · 2020
    Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Nick Beije
Jean C Helmijr
Marjolein J A Weerts
Corine M Beaufort
Matthew Wiggin
Andre Marziali
Cornelis Verhoef
Stefan Sleijfer
Maurice P H M Jansen
John W M Martens
Erasmus MC · NLCollège Boréal · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Assessing circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is a promising method to evaluate somatic mutations from solid tumors in a minimally-invasive way. In a group of twelve metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients undergoing liver metastasectomy, from each patient DNA from cell-free DNA (cfDNA), the primary tumor, metastatic liver tissue, normal tumor-adjacent colon or liver tissue, and whole blood were obtained. Investigated was the feasibility of a targeted NGS approach to identify somatic mutations in ctDNA. This targeted NGS approach was also compared with NGS preceded by mutant allele enrichment using synchronous coefficient of drag alteration technology embodied in the OnTarget assay, and for selected mutations with digital PCR (dPCR). All tissue and cfDNA samples underwent IonPGM sequencing for a CRC-specific 21-gene panel, which was analyzed using a standard and a modified calling pipeline. In addition, cfDNA, whole blood and normal tissue DNA were analyzed with the OnTarget assay and with dPCR for specific mutations in cfDNA as detected in the corresponding primary and/or metastatic tumor tissue. NGS with modified calling was superior to standard calling and detected ctDNA in the cfDNA of 10 patients harboring mutations in APC, ATM, CREBBP, FBXW7, KRAS, KMT2D, PIK3CA and TP53. Using this approach, variant allele frequencies in plasma ranged predominantly from 1 to 10%, resulting in limited concordance between ctDNA and the primary tumor (39%) and the metastases (55%). Concordance between ctDNA and tissue markedly improved when ctDNA was evaluated for KRAS, PIK3CA and TP53 mutations by the OnTarget assay (80%) and digital PCR (93%). Additionally, using these techniques mutations were observed in tumor-adjacent tissue with normal morphology in the majority of patients, which were not observed in whole blood. In conclusion, in these mCRC patients with oligometastatic disease NGS on cfDNA was feasible, but had limited sensitivity to detect all somatic mutations present in tissue. Digital PCR and mutant allele enrichment before NGS appeared to be more sensitive to detect somatic mutations.

Indexed as

Cell-Free SystemCirculating Tumor DNAColonic NeoplasmsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansLiver NeoplasmsMutationNeoplastic Cells, CirculatingPolymerase Chain ReactionCirculating Tumor DNACell-free DNACirculating tumor DNAMetastatic colorectal cancerNext-generation sequencingSomatic mutations

Identifiers

PMID28949453
PMCPMC5423131
OpenAlexW2530011855

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.