Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36570645›Full record

ArticleProstate international2022

Challenges in next generation sequencing of homology recombination repair genomic variants in prostate cancer: A nationwide survey and calibration project in China.

Huanwen Wu, Liqun Zhou, Xiaoyan Zhou, Qiang Wei, Nengtai Ouyang, Jianyong Shao, Jian Huang, Zhiyong Liang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Prostate international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 48% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Huanwen WuDepartment of Pathology, State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Diseases, Molecular Pathology Research Center, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China.
Liqun ZhouDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing 100034, China.
Xiaoyan ZhouDepartment of Pathology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai 200032, China.
Qiang WeiDepartment of Urology, West China Hospital Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China.
Nengtai OuyangCellular & Molecular Diagnostics Center, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510288, China.
Jianyong ShaoDepartment of Molecular Diagnostic, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou 510700, China.
Jian HuangDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510630, China.
Zhiyong LiangDepartment of Pathology, State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Diseases, Molecular Pathology Research Center, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China.
Sun Yat-sen University · CNChinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CNPeking University · CNShanghai Medical College of Fudan University · CNSichuan University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Homologous Recombination Repair (HRR) is the most reliable and important signaling pathway for repairing DNA damage. We initiated a calibration project to better understand the NGS landscape for HRR gene testing in China, provide indications for testing standardization, and guide clinical practice. Methods: A questionnaire was used to collect laboratory information, panel design for HRR gene testing, tissue sample test parameters, plasma ctDNA sample test parameters, and procedures for variant interpretation. The testing quality of the participating laboratories was further evaluated by external quality assessment (EQA), which provided 5 FFPE slices and 5 mimic ctDNA samples as standard references for evaluation. Test results and reports were collected to assess laboratory performance. Results: Our results showed that different laboratories had significant differences in sequencing platforms, library construction technologies, genes in the testing panel, detectable mutation types, probe coverage regions, sequencing parameters, variants interpretation guidelines, and positive test rates. For the EQA test, the overall pass rate was about 60%. The average accuracy for tissue samples and ctDNA samples was 79.55% and 74.13%, respectively. It is worth noting that variants in tandem repetition regions and splice sites, and those with low allele frequency were more prone to misdetection. The most common reasons for misdetection were as follows: the testing panel did not cover the genes or the whole exon and splice sites of the genes; the variants were misclassified as benign or likely benign, and the variants failed the QC criteria. Conclusions: The discrepancies observed in our survey and EQA test affect the authenticity of HRR gene test results for prostate cancer, underlining the need to establish guidelines for HRR gene testing and variant interpretation in China, and to optimize HRR gene testing in clinical practice to improve management and patient care.

Indexed as

external quality assessmenthomologous recombination repair gene testingnational questionnaire surveynext-generation sequencingprostate cancer

Identifiers

PMID36570645
PMCPMC9747577
OpenAlexW4286436627

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.