ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Analytic and Clinical Validation of a Pan-Cancer NGS Liquid Biopsy Test for the Detection of Copy Number Amplifications, Fusions and Exon Skipping Variants.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. 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.
- Preparation of robust synthetic control samples and their use in a metatranscriptomic clinical test.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Liquid biopsies are an integral part of the diagnosis of cancer. Here, we have extended previous validation studies of a new targeted NGS panel to include the detection of copy number amplifications (CNAs), fusions, and exon skipping variants. Detection of these gene classes included specimens from clinical and healthy donors and cell lines (fusions: ROS1, EML4-ALK, NTRK1; exon skipping: MET exon 14; CNAs: HER2, CDK6, EGFR, MYC, and MET). The limit of detection (LOD) for fusion/skipping was 42 copies (QC threshold was three copies) and was verified using three additional fusion/skipping variants. LOD for CNAs was 1.40-fold-change (QC threshold = 1.15-fold change) and was verified with three additional CNAs. In repeatability and intermediate precision (within lab) studies, all fusion/skipping variants were detected in all runs and all days of testing (n = 18/18; 100%); average CV for repeatability was 20.5% (range 8.7-34.8%), and for intermediate precision it was 20.8% (range 15.7-30.5%). For CNAs, 28/29 (96.6%) copy gains were detected. For CNAs, the average CV was 1.85% (range 0% to 5.49%) for repeatability and 6.59% (range 1.65% to 9.22%) for intermediate precision. The test panel meets the criteria for being highly sensitive and specific and extends its utility for the serial detection of clinically relevant variants in cancer.
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.