ArticlePeerJ2020
Validation and clinical application of a targeted next-generation sequencing gene panel for solid and hematologic malignancies.
Article in PeerJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comprehensive Approach to Genomic and Immune Profiling: Insights of a Real-World Experience in Gynecological Tumors.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNext-generation sequencing (NGS) is a high-throughput technology that has become widely integrated in molecular diagnostics laboratories. Among the large diversity of NGS-based panels, the Trusight Tumor 26 (TsT26) enables the detection of low-frequency variants across 26 genes using the MiSeq platform.
methodsWe describe the inter-laboratory validation and subsequent clinical application of the panel in 399 patients presenting a range of tumor types, including gastrointestinal (GI, 29%), hematologic (18%), lung (13%), gynecological and breast (8% each), among others.
resultsThe panel is highly accurate with a test sensitivity of 92%, and demonstrated high specificity and positive predictive values (95% and 96%, respectively). Sequencing testing was successful in two-thirds of patients, while the remaining third failed due to unsuccessful quality-control filtering. Most detected variants were observed in the
conclusionsPrior panel validation allowed its use in the laboratory daily practice by providing several relevant and potentially targetable variants across multiple tumors. However, this study is limited by high sample inadequacy rate, raising doubts as to continuity in the clinical setting.
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.