ArticleThe Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD2023
Evaluating Multiple Next-Generation Sequencing-Derived Tumor Features to Accurately Predict DNA Mismatch Repair Status.
Article in The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lynch syndrome caused by a pathogenic SINE-VNTR-Alu (SVA) insertion in MSH2 gene identified by long-read DNA sequencing.Familial cancer · 2026Article
- The molecular cartography of malignant and benign sebaceous tumours.Nature communications · 2025Article
- The germline POLD1 c.1420 C > A (p.Leu474Ile) variant segregates with endometrial cancer, colorectal cancer and colonic polyps demonstrating hypermutation and defective POLD1 mutational signatures.Familial cancer · 2025Article
- A Perspective on Artificial Intelligence for Molecular Pathologists.The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD · 2025Review
- Recapitulating the adenoma-carcinoma sequence by selection of four spontaneous oncogenic mutations in mismatch-repair-deficient human colon organoids.Nature cancer · 2024Article
- Tumor analysis of MMR genes in Lynch-like syndrome: Challenges associated with results interpretation.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Intratumoral presence of the genotoxic gut bacteria pksBritish journal of cancer · 2024Article
- Article
- Identifying primary and secondary MLH1 epimutation carriers displaying low-level constitutional MLH1 methylation using droplet digital PCR and genome-wide DNA methylation profiling of colorectal cancers.Clinical epigenetics · 2023Article
- A tumor focused approach to resolving the etiology of DNA mismatch repair deficient tumors classified as suspected Lynch syndrome.Journal of translational medicine · 2023Article
- A tumor focused approach to resolving the etiology of DNA mismatch repair deficient tumors classified as suspected Lynch syndrome.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
26 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Identifying tumor DNA mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR) is important for precision medicine. Tumor features, individually and in combination, derived from whole-exome sequenced (WES) colorectal cancers (CRCs) and panel-sequenced CRCs, endometrial cancers (ECs), and sebaceous skin tumors (SSTs) were assessed for their accuracy in detecting dMMR. CRCs (n = 300) with WES, where mismatch repair status was determined by immunohistochemistry, were assessed for microsatellite instability (MSMuTect, MANTIS, MSIseq, and MSISensor), Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer tumor mutational signatures, and somatic mutation counts. A 10-fold cross-validation approach (100 repeats) evaluated the dMMR prediction accuracy for i) individual features, ii) Lasso statistical model, and iii) an additive feature combination approach. Panel-sequenced tumors (29 CRCs, 22 ECs, and 20 SSTs) were assessed for the top performing dMMR predicting features/models using these three approaches. For WES CRCs, 10 features provided >80% dMMR prediction accuracy, with MSMuTect, MSIseq, and MANTIS achieving ≥99% accuracy. The Lasso model achieved 98.3% accuracy. The additive feature approach, with three or more of six of MSMuTect, MANTIS, MSIseq, MSISensor, insertion-deletion count, or tumor mutational signature small insertion/deletion 2 + small insertion/deletion 7 achieved 99.7% accuracy. For the panel-sequenced tumors, the additive feature combination approach of three or more of six achieved accuracies of 100%, 95.5%, and 100% for CRCs, ECs, and SSTs, respectively. The microsatellite instability calling tools performed well in WES CRCs; however, an approach combining tumor features may improve dMMR prediction in both WES and panel-sequenced data across tissue types.
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.