Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31186376›Full record

ArticleThe oncologist2019

Association Between Preanalytical Factors and Tumor Mutational Burden Estimated by Next-Generation Sequencing-Based Multiplex Gene Panel Assay.

Pham Nguyen Quy, Masashi Kanai, Keita Fukuyama, Tadayuki Kou, Tomohiro Kondo, Yoshihiro Yamamoto, Junichi Matsubara, Akinori Hiroshima, Hiroaki Mochizuki, Tomohiro Sakuma and 9 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The oncologist, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

19 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Pham Nguyen QuyDepartment of Medical Oncology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Masashi KanaiDepartment of Medical Oncology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan kanai@kuhp.kyoto-u.ac.jp.
Keita FukuyamaDivision of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery and Transplantation, Department of Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Tadayuki KouDepartment of Medical Oncology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Tomohiro KondoDepartment of Medical Oncology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Yoshihiro YamamotoDepartment of Medical Oncology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Junichi MatsubaraDepartment of Medical Oncology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Akinori HiroshimaBiomedical Department, Mitsui Knowledge Industry Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan.
Hiroaki MochizukiBiomedical Department, Mitsui Knowledge Industry Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan.
Tomohiro SakumaBiomedical Department, Mitsui Knowledge Industry Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan.
Mayumi KamadaDepartment of Biomedical Data Intelligence, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Masahiko NakatsuiDepartment of Biomedical Data Intelligence, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Yuji EsoDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Hiroshi SenoDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Toshihiko MasuiDivision of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery and Transplantation, Department of Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Kyoichi TakaoriDivision of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery and Transplantation, Department of Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Sachiko MinamiguchiDepartment of Diagnostic Pathology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Shigemi MatsumotoDepartment of Medical Oncology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Manabu MutoDepartment of Medical Oncology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Kyoto University · JPMitsui (Japan) · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTumor mutational burden (TMB) measured via next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based gene panel is a promising biomarker for response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in solid tumors. However, little is known about the preanalytical factors that can affect the TMB score. MATERIALS AND

methodsData of 199 patients with solid tumors who underwent multiplex NGS gene panel (OncoPrime), which was commercially provided by a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-licensed laboratory and covered 0.78 megabase (Mb) of capture size relevant to the TMB calculation, were reviewed. Associations between the TMB score and preanalytical factors, including sample DNA quality, sample type, sampling site, and storage period, were analyzed. Clinical outcomes of patients with a high TMB score (≥10 mutations per megabase) who received anti-programmed cell death protein 1 antibodies (

resultsLow DNA library concentration (<5 nM), formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue (FFPE), and the prolonged sample storage period (range, 0.9-58.1 months) correlated with a higher TMB score. After excluding low DNA library samples from the analysis, FFPE samples, but not the sample storage period, exhibited a marked correlation with a high TMB score. Of 22 patients with a high TMB score, we observed the partial response in 2 patients (9.1%).

conclusionOur results indicate that the TMB score estimated via NGS-based gene panel could be affected by the DNA library concentration and sample type. These factors could potentially increase the false-positive and/or artifactual variant calls. As each gene panel has its own pipeline for variant calling, it is unknown whether these factors have a significant effect in other platforms. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: A high tumor mutational burden score, as estimated via next-generation sequencing-based gene panel testing, should be carefully interpreted as it could be affected by the DNA library concentration and sample type.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiomarkers, TumorChildHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMiddle AgedTumor BurdenYoung AdultBiomarkers, TumorDNA qualityImmune checkpoint inhibitorsMutational burdenNext‐generation sequencing

Identifiers

PMID31186376
PMCPMC6975932
OpenAlexW2951412130

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.