Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31442744›Full record

ArticleTranslational oncology2019

Cancer Panel Assay for Precision Oncology Clinic: Results from a 1-Year Study.

Dohee Kwon, Binnari Kim, Hyeong Chan Shin, Eun Ji Kim, Sang Yun Ha, Kee-Taek Jang, Seung Tae Kim, Jeeyun Lee, Won Ki Kang, Joon Oh Park and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. 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

11 authors.

Dohee KwonDepartment of Pathology and Translational Genomics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Binnari KimDepartment of Pathology and Translational Genomics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea; Center of Companion Diagnostics, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Hyeong Chan ShinDepartment of Pathology and Translational Genomics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Eun Ji KimCenter of Companion Diagnostics, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Sang Yun HaDepartment of Pathology and Translational Genomics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Kee-Taek JangDepartment of Pathology and Translational Genomics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Seung Tae KimDivision of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Jeeyun LeeDivision of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Won Ki KangDivision of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Joon Oh ParkDivision of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: oncopark@skku.edu.
Kyoung-Mee KimDepartment of Pathology and Translational Genomics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea; Center of Companion Diagnostics, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: kkmkys@skku.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based cancer panel tests are actively being applied in the clinic for precision oncology. Given the importance of NGS panel tests in the palliative clinical setting, it is critical to understand success rates, factors responsible for test failures, and the incidence of clinically meaningful genetic alterations. We performed NGS cancer panel test with tumors from the stomach (n = 234), colorectum (n = 196), and rare tumors (n = 105) from 535 recurrent or metastatic cancer patients for 1 year. Sequencing was successful in 483 (95.3%) archival tumor samples to find single nucleotide variant (SNV), copy number alteration (CNA), and fusion. NGS testing was unsuccessful in 52 (9.7%) specimens due to inadequate tissue (n = 28), low tumor volume (n = 19), and poor quality of nucleic acid (n = 5). According to the Tier system, variants were classified as Tier IA, 0.8%; IIC, 10.3%; IID, 2.0%; III, 66.7% for gastric: Tier IA, 3.6%; IIC, 11.6% for colorectal: Tier IA, 1.6%; IIC, 13.5%; IID, 0.5%; III, 70.8% for melanoma, and Tier IA, 9.1%; IIC, 1.8%; IID, 1.0%; III, 66.4% for GIST. In total, 30.8% of 483 sequenced cases harbored clinically meaningful variants. In Tier IA, KRAS and ERBB2 were the most commonly altered genes. Interestingly, we identified CD274 (PD-L1) amplification, PTPN11 (SHP2) SNV, TPM3-NTRK1 fusion, and FGFR3-TACC3 fusion as a rare (<2%) alteration having therapeutic targets. In conclusion, although small biopsy samples constitute half of cases, informative NGS results were successfully reported in >90% of archival tissue samples, and 30.8% of them harbored clinically meaningful variants.

Identifiers

PMID31442744
PMCPMC6710823

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.