ArticleBiometrics2021
Testing tumors from different anatomic sites for clonal relatedness using somatic mutation data.
Article in Biometrics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genetic Alterations in Chromatin Regulatory Genes in Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma and Urothelial Bladder Cancer.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Evaluating statistical approaches to define clonal origin of tumours using bulk DNA sequencing: context is everything.Genome biology · 2022Review
- Molecular evidence for a clonal relationship between synchronous uterine endometrioid carcinoma and ovarian clear cell carcinoma: a new example of "precursor escape"?Journal of molecular medicine (Berlin, Germany) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A common task for the cancer pathologist is to determine, in a patient suffering from cancer, whether a new tumor in a distinct anatomic site from the primary is an independent occurrence of cancer or a metastasis. As mutational profiling of tumors becomes more widespread in routine clinical practice, this diagnostic task can be greatly enhanced by comparing mutational profiles of the tumors to determine if they are sufficiently similar to conclude that the tumors are clonally related, that is, one is a metastasis of the other. We present here a likelihood ratio test for clonal relatedness in this setting and provide evidence of its validity. The test is unusual in that there are two possible alternative hypotheses, representing the two anatomic sites from which the single clonal cell could have initially emerged. Although evidence for clonal relatedness is largely provided by the presence of exact mutational matches in the two tumors, we show that it is possible to observe data where the test is statistically significant even when no matches are observed. This can occur when the mutational profile of one of the tumors is closely aligned with the anatomic site of the other tumor, suggesting indirectly that the tumor originated in that other site. We exhibit examples of this phenomenon and recommend a strategy for interpreting the results of these tests in practice.
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.