ArticleAnnals of laboratory medicine2023
Comparison of Homologous Recombination Repair Gene Next-Generation Sequencing Analysis in Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Between Local and Central Laboratories in Korea.
Article in Annals of laboratory medicine, 2023. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Novel therapeutic strategies for metastatic castration‑resistant prostate cancer: Beyond androgen receptor pathway inhibition (Review).International journal of oncology · 2026Review
- The discrepancy of somatic BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants from two different platforms in epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancer.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Is the Homologous Recombination Repair Mutation Defined by a 15-Gene Panel Associated with the Prognosis of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer?Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Following success of the phase III PROfound trial, the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in May 2020 for adult patients with deleterious homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene-mutated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). As locally adopted multigene panel next-generation sequencing (NGS) assays for selecting PARP inhibitor candidates have not been thoroughly evaluated, we compared the analytical performance of the FoundationOne CDx (Foundation Medicine, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA) (central laboratory) and other NGS assays (local laboratory) with samples from the PROfound trial in Korea. Methods: One hundred PROfound samples (60 HRR mutation [HRRm] cases and 40 non-HRRm cases) were analyzed. The results of HRR gene mutation analysis were compared between the FoundationOne CDx and two other NGS assays [SureSelect Custom Design assay (Agilent Technologies, Inc., Santa Clara, CA, USA) and Oncomine Comprehensive assay (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., Waltham, MA, USA)]. Results: The positive percent agreement for single nucleotide variants (SNVs) and insertion/deletions (indels) between the central laboratory and local laboratory was 98.7%-100.0%. The negative percent agreement and overall percent agreement (OPA) for SNVs and indels between central and local laboratories were both 100%. Compared with that of the FoundationOne CDx assay, the OPA for copy number variations of the Oncomine Comprehensive and SureSelect Custom assays reached 99.8%-100%. Most mCRPC patients harboring a deleterious genetic variant were successfully identified with both local laboratory assays. Conclusions: The NGS approach at a local laboratory showed comparable analytical performance for identifying HRRm status to the FoundationOne CDx assay used at the central laboratory.
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.