Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32785074›Full record

ArticleCancers2020

Design and Testing of a Custom Melanoma Next Generation Sequencing Panel for Analysis of Circulating Tumor DNA.

Russell J Diefenbach, Jenny H Lee, Alexander M Menzies, Matteo S Carlino, Georgina V Long, Robyn P M Saw, Julie R Howle, Andrew J Spillane, Richard A Scolyer, Richard F Kefford and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Melanoma genomics - will we go beyond BRAF in clinics?Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Russell J DiefenbachDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8433-4336
Jenny H LeeDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia.
Alexander M MenziesMelanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2065, Australia.
Matteo S CarlinoMelanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2065, Australia.
Georgina V LongMelanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2065, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8894-3545
Robyn P M SawMelanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2065, Australia.
Julie R HowleMelanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2065, Australia.
Andrew J SpillaneMelanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2065, Australia.
Richard A ScolyerMelanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2065, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8991-0013
Richard F KeffordMelanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2065, Australia.
Helen RizosDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia.
The University of Sydney · AU

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council APP1093017National Health and Medical Research Council APP1104503National Health and Medical Research Council APP1119059National Health and Medical Research Council APP1128951National Health and Medical Research Council APP1141295
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Detection of melanoma-associated mutations using circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from plasma is a potential alternative to using genomic DNA from invasive tissue biopsies. In this study, we developed a custom melanoma next-generation sequencing (NGS) panel which includes 123 amplicons in 30 genes covering driver and targetable mutations and alterations associated with treatment resistance. Analysis of a cohort of 74 stage III and IV treatment-naïve melanoma patients revealed that sensitivity of ctDNA detection was influenced by the amount of circulating-free DNA (cfDNA) input and stage of melanoma. At the recommended cfDNA input quantity of 20 ng (available in 28/74 patients), at least one cancer-associated mutation was detected in the ctDNA of 84% of stage IV patients and 47% of stage III patients with a limit of detection for mutant allele frequency (MAF) of 0.2%. This custom melanoma panel showed significant correlation with droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) and provided a more comprehensive melanoma mutation profile. Our custom panel could be further optimized by replacing amplicons spanning the

Indexed as

circulating tumor DNAcustom panelMelanomatargeted sequencing

Identifiers

PMID32785074
PMCPMC7465941
OpenAlexW3047906472

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.