Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32770442›Full record

ArticleTargeted oncology2020

Comparison of Large, Medium, and Small Solid Tumor Gene Panels for Detection of Clinically Actionable Mutations in Cancer.

Eric Vail, Jianbo Song, Jing Xu, Joseph S Frye, Jong Taek Kim, Andy Pao, Rhona Schreck, Angela S Aguiluz, Wenjuan Zhang, Serhan Alkan and 5 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Targeted oncology, 2020. 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
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 38% 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Impact of next-generation sequencing on routine clinical practice and patient inclusion in molecularly targeted clinical trials: a retrospective cohort analysis.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

15 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Eric VailDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. Eric.Vail@cshs.org.ORCID 0000-0002-6578-178X
Jianbo SongDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Jing XuDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Joseph S FryeDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Jong Taek KimDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Andy PaoDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Rhona SchreckDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Angela S AguiluzDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Wenjuan ZhangDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Serhan AlkanDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Alain MitaDivision of Hematology-Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Monica MitaDivision of Hematology-Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Robert A FiglinDivision of Hematology-Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
David M EngmanDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Jean R LopateguiDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. Jean.Lopategui@cshs.org.
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNext-generation sequencing of gene panels has supplanted single-gene testing for cancer molecular diagnostics in many laboratories. Considerations for the optimal number of genes to assess in a panel depend on the purpose of the testing.

objectiveTo address the optimal size for the identification of clinically actionable variants in different-sized solid tumor sequencing panels. PATIENTS AND

methodsSequencing results from 480 patients with a large, 315 gene, panel were compared against coverage of a medium, 161 gene, and small, 50 gene, panel.

resultsThe large panel detected a total of 2072 sequence variants in 480 patient specimens; 61 (12.7%) contained variants for which there is therapy approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, 89 (18.5%) had variants associated with an off-label therapy, and 312 (65.0%) contained variants eligible for a genomically matched clinical trial. The small panel covered only 737 of the 2072 variants (35.5%) and somewhat fewer therapy-related variants (on-label 88.5%, off-label 60.7%). The medium-size panel included 1354 of the 2072 (65.3%) variants reported by the large panel. All 318 patients with a clinically actionable variant would have been identified by the medium panel.

conclusionsThe results demonstrate that a carefully designed medium size gene panel is as effective as a large panel for the detection of clinically actionable variants and can be run by most molecular pathology laboratories.

Indexed as

FemaleHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMaleMutationNeoplasms

Identifiers

PMID32770442
OpenAlexW3048249416

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.