ArticleAmerican journal of clinical pathology2019
Clinical Validation of Discordant Trunk Driver Mutations in Paired Primary and Metastatic Lung Cancer Specimens.
Article in American journal of clinical pathology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clonal Origin Evaluated by Trunk and Branching Drivers and Prevalence of Mutations in Multiple Lung Tumor Nodules.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2020Article
- IDH1 and IDH2 mutations in lung adenocarcinomas: Evidences of subclonal evolution.Cancer medicine · 2020Article
- Clinical mutational profiling and categorization of BRAF mutations in melanomas using next generation sequencing.BMC cancer · 2019Article
- Genomic landscape and actionable mutations of brain metastases derived from non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review.Neuro-oncology advancesArticle
- Unusual Synchronous Multiple Primary Early-Stage Lung Adenocarcinoma with Concomitant MET Exon 14 Skipping, PIK3CA and KRAS Mutations: A Case Report.Case reports in oncologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo propose an operating procedure for validation of discordant trunk driver mutations.
methodsConcordance of trunk drivers was examined by next-generation sequencing in 15 patients with two to three metastatic lung cancers and 32 paired primary and metastatic lung cancers.
resultsTissue identity was confirmed by genotyping 17 single-nucleotide polymorphisms within the panel. All except three pairs showed concordant trunk drivers. Quality assessment conducted in three primary and metastatic pairs with discordant trunk drivers indicates metastasis from a synchronous or remote lung primary in two patients. Review of literature revealed high discordant rates of EGFR and KRAS mutations, especially when Sanger sequencing was applied to examine primary and lymph node metastatic tumors.
conclusionsTrunk driver mutations are highly concordant in primary and metastatic tumors. Discordance of trunk drivers, once confirmed, may suggest a second primary cancer. Guidelines are recommended to establish standard operating procedures for validation of discordant trunk drivers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.