ArticlePloS one2019
Assessing reliability of intra-tumor heterogeneity estimates from single sample whole exome sequencing data.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- ITHindex: An integrated web-based platform for intratumor heterogeneity evaluation.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Intratumor graph neural network recovers hidden prognostic value of multi-biomarker spatial heterogeneity.Nature communications · 2022Article
- Plasma-Based Measurements of Tumor Heterogeneity Correlate with Clinical Outcomes in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.Cancers · 2022Article
- Computational Approaches for the Investigation of Intra-tumor Heterogeneity and Clonal Evolution from Bulk Sequencing Data in Precision Oncology Applications.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2022Review
- Benchmarking pipelines for subclonal deconvolution of bulk tumour sequencing data.Nature communications · 2021Article
- CloneSig can jointly infer intra-tumor heterogeneity and mutational signature activity in bulk tumor sequencing data.Nature communications · 2021Article
- Assessing tumor heterogeneity: integrating tissue and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis in the era of immuno-oncology - blood TMB is not the same as tissue TMB.Journal for immunotherapy of cancer · 2021Review
- Chromosomal copy number heterogeneity predicts survival rates across cancers.Nature communications · 2021Article
- Biological bases of cancer immunotherapy.Expert reviews in molecular medicine · 2021Article
- Characterization of Clonal Evolution in Microsatellite Unstable Metastatic Cancers through Multiregional Tumor Sequencing.Molecular cancer research : MCR · 2021Article
- A practical guide to cancer subclonal reconstruction from DNA sequencing.Nature methods · 2021Review
- Cumulative learning enables convolutional neural network representations for small mass spectrometry data classification.Nature communications · 2020Article
- Combination Chemotherapy Optimization with Discrete Dosing.INFORMS journal on computingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tumors are made of evolving and heterogeneous populations of cells which arise from successive appearance and expansion of subclonal populations, following acquisition of mutations conferring them a selective advantage. Those subclonal populations can be sensitive or resistant to different treatments, and provide information about tumor aetiology and future evolution. Hence, it is important to be able to assess the level of heterogeneity of tumors with high reliability for clinical applications. In the past few years, a large number of methods have been proposed to estimate intra-tumor heterogeneity from whole exome sequencing (WES) data, but the accuracy and robustness of these methods on real data remains elusive. Here we systematically apply and compare 6 computational methods to estimate tumor heterogeneity on 1,697 WES samples from the cancer genome atlas (TCGA) covering 3 cancer types (breast invasive carcinoma, bladder urothelial carcinoma, and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma), and two distinct input mutation sets. We observe significant differences between the estimates produced by different methods, and identify several likely confounding factors in heterogeneity assessment for the different methods. We further show that the prognostic value of tumor heterogeneity for survival prediction is limited in those datasets, and find no evidence that it improves over prognosis based on other clinical variables. In conclusion, heterogeneity inference from WES data on a single sample, and its use in cancer prognosis, should be considered with caution. Other approaches to assess intra-tumoral heterogeneity such as those based on multiple samples may be preferable for clinical applications.
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.