ArticleMolecular diagnosis & therapy2021
Internal Standardization of the Interpretation and Reporting of Sequence Variants in Hematologic Neoplasms.
Article in Molecular diagnosis & therapy, 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Survey of diagnostic laboratories highlights need for improved standards in somatic genomic testing and reporting.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- CMML2AML: machine-learning discovery of co-mutations and specific single mutations predictive of blast transformation in chronic myelomonocytic leukemia.Blood cancer journal · 2026Article
- Therapy-related clonal cytopenia as a precursor to therapy-related myeloid neoplasms.Blood cancer journal · 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAccurate classification of somatic genetic alterations detected by next-generation sequencing (NGS) assays is of paramount importance to ensure the provision of high-quality clinical data. Clinical significance of variants can be assessed and tiered based on guidelines from the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP), the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the College of American Pathology for the interpretation of somatic sequence variants identified in cancer.
methodsWe sought to develop a formal structured approach for the classification of somatic variants in hematologic neoplasms, to account for both a variant's clinical significance and its ability to drive tumorigenesis, by adapting elements from these existing guidelines. However, we additionally utilized key criteria from the American College of Medical Genetics/AMP standards for variant reporting to focus evaluation into specific categories of evidence and to gauge the effect of a given variant on tumorigenesis.
resultsThe combined approach was applied to the annotation of 87 variants identified by a targeted NGS panel for myeloid neoplasms. In the application of our variant evaluation, we classified 2/87 variants as benign, 6/87 as likely benign, 56/87 as variants of unknown significance (VUS), 13/87 variants as likely pathogenic, and 10/87 variants as pathogenic.
conclusionWell-established oncogenic alterations were accurately classified as pathogenic. Although there is no defined benchmark for the remaining variants, drawing from two existing guidelines enabled the creation of a modified curation process for variant interpretation that emphasizes systematic review of relevant evidence.
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.