Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29935306›Full record

ArticleJournal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer2018

Comparison of Molecular Testing Modalities for Detection of ROS1 Rearrangements in a Cohort of Positive Patient Samples.

Kurtis D Davies, Anh T Le, Jamie Sheren, Hala Nijmeh, Katherine Gowan, Kenneth L Jones, Marileila Varella-Garcia, Dara L Aisner, Robert C Doebele

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 80 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

80 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Updated guidelines for predictive biomarker testing in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a National Consensus of the Spanish Society of Pathology and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2020
    Guideline
  3. Guideline
  4. Identification of a RAS-activatingClinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2020
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Oncogenic gene fusions in cancer: from biology to therapy.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Characteristics ofTherapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

20 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Kurtis D DaviesDepartment of Pathology, University of Colorado - Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado.
Anh T LeDepartment of Medicine - Division of Medical Oncology, University of Colorado - Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado.
Jamie SherenDepartment of Pathology, University of Colorado - Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado.
Hala NijmehDepartment of Pathology, University of Colorado - Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado.
Katherine GowanDepartment of Pediatrics - Section of Hematology, Oncology, and Bone Marrow Transplant, University of Colorado - Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado.
Kenneth L JonesDepartment of Pediatrics - Section of Hematology, Oncology, and Bone Marrow Transplant, University of Colorado - Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado.
Marileila Varella-GarciaDepartment of Pathology, University of Colorado - Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado; Department of Medicine - Division of Medical Oncology, University of Colorado - Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado.
Dara L AisnerDepartment of Pathology, University of Colorado - Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado.
Robert C DoebeleDepartment of Medicine - Division of Medical Oncology, University of Colorado - Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado. Electronic address: robert.doebele@ucdenver.edu.

Funding

University of Colorado Cancer Center Support Grant - Lung Cancer Patient-Derived Xenografts with Autologous Human Immune SystemsP30CA046934 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI James V Degregori · 1988 to 2026
$117.0M
Tissue Bank and Biomarkers CoreP50CA058187 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI MILLER, YORK E · 1992 to 2018
$43.8M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA046934NCI NIH HHS P50 CA058187
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionROS1 gene fusions are a well-characterized class of oncogenic driver found in approximately 1% to 2% of NSCLC patients. ROS1-directed therapy in these patients is more efficacious and is associated with fewer side effects compared to chemotherapy and is thus now considered standard-of-care for patients with advanced disease. Consequently, accurate detection of ROS1 rearrangements/fusions in clinical tumor samples is vital. In this study, we compared the performance of three common molecular testing approaches on a cohort of ROS1 rearrangement/fusion-positive patient samples.

methodsTwenty-three ROS1 rearrangement/fusion-positive clinical samples were assessed by at least two of the following molecular testing methodologies: break-apart fluorescence in situ hybridization, DNA-based hybrid capture library preparation followed by next-generation sequencing (NGS), and RNA-based anchored multiplex polymerase chain reaction library preparation followed by NGS.

resultsNone of the testing methodologies demonstrated 100% sensitivity in detection of ROS1 rearrangements/fusions. Fluorescence in situ hybridization results were negative in 2 of 20 tested samples, the DNA-based NGS assay was negative in 4 of 18 tested samples, and the RNA-based NGS assay was negative in 3 of 19 tested samples. For all three testing approaches, we identified assay characteristics that likely contributed to false-negative results. Additionally, we report that genomic breakpoints are an unreliable predictor of breakpoints at the transcript level, likely due to alternative splicing.

conclusionsROS1 rearrangement/fusion detection in the clinical setting is complex and all methodologies have inherent limitations of which users must be aware to correctly interpret results.

Indexed as

Cohort StudiesFemaleGene FusionHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansIn Situ Hybridization, FluorescenceMaleProtein-Tyrosine KinasesProto-Oncogene ProteinsProtein-Tyrosine KinasesProto-Oncogene ProteinsROS1 protein, humanFISHlung cancermolecular testingnext-generation sequencingROS1

Identifiers

PMID29935306
PMCPMC6286810

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.