ArticlePloS one2021
Development and validation of a multigene variant profiling assay to guide targeted and immuno therapy selection in solid tumors.
Article in PloS one, 2021. 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We present data on analytical validation of the multigene variant profiling assay (CellDx) to provide actionable indications for selection of targeted and immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy in solid tumors. CellDx includes Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) profiling of gene variants in a targeted 452-gene panel as well as status of total Tumor Mutation Burden (TMB), Microsatellite instability (MSI), Mismatch Repair (MMR) and Programmed Cell Death-Ligand 1 (PD-L1) respectively. Validation parameters included accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and reproducibility for detection of Single Nucleotide Alterations (SNAs), Copy Number Alterations (CNAs), Insertions and Deletions (Indels), Gene fusions, MSI and PDL1. Cumulative analytical sensitivity and specificity of the assay were 99.03 (95% CI: 96.54-99.88) and 99.23% (95% CI: 98.54% - 99.65%) respectively with 99.20% overall Accuracy (95% CI: 98.57% - 99.60%) and 99.7% Precision based on evaluation of 116 reference samples. The clinical performance of CellDx was evaluated in a subsequent analysis of 299 clinical samples where 861 unique mutations were detected of which 791 were oncogenic and 47 were actionable. Indications in MMR, MSI and TMB for selection of ICI therapies were also detected in the clinical samples. The high specificity, sensitivity, accuracy and reproducibility of the CellDx assay is suitable for clinical application for guiding selection of targeted and immunotherapy agents in patients with solid organ tumors.
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.