ArticleCancer science2023
Molecular pathology quality control in Southeast Asia: Results of a multiregional quality assurance study from MASTER KEY Asia.
Article in Cancer science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tumor Genomic and Transcriptomic Analysis Integrated With Liquid Biopsy ctDNA Monitoring: Analytical Validation and Clinical Insights.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- Combination ofFrontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Clinical trial and real-world evidence of circulating tumor DNA monitoring to predict recurrence in patients with resected colorectal cancer.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2024Article
- Analysis of quality metrics in comprehensive cancer genomic profiling using a dual DNA-RNA panel.Practical laboratory medicine · 2024Article
- Molecular pathology quality control in Southeast Asia: Results of a multiregional quality assurance study from MASTER KEY Asia.Cancer science · 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
18 authors at 8 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Tissue specimen quality assurance is a major issue of precision medicine for rare cancers. However, the laboratory standards and quality of pathological specimens prepared in Asian hospitals remain unknown. To understand the methods in Southeast Asian oncology hospitals and to clarify how pre-analytics affect the quality of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) specimens, a questionnaire surveying pre-analytical procedures (Part I) was administered, quality assessment of immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining and DNA/RNA extracted from the representative FFPE specimens from each hospital (Part II) was conducted, and the quality of DNA/RNA extracted from FFPE of rare-cancer patients for genomic sequencing (Part III) was examined. Quality measurements for DNA/RNA included ΔΔCt, DV200, and cDNA yield. Six major cancer hospitals from Malaysia, Philippines, and Vietnam participated. One hospital showed unacceptable quality for the DNA/RNA assessment, but improved by revising laboratory procedures. Only 57% (n = 73) of the 128 rare-cancer patients' specimens met both DNA and RNA quality criteria for next-generation sequencing. Median DV200 was 80.7% and 64.3% for qualified and failed RNA, respectively. Median ΔΔCt was 1.25 for qualified and 4.89 for failed DNA. Longer storage period was significantly associated with poor DNA (fail to qualify ratio = 1579:321 days, p < 0.001) and RNA (fail to qualify ratio = 1070:280 days, p < 0.001). After improvement of pre-analytical factors, the qualification rate increased for hospitals A and E from 41.5% to 70.5% and 62.5% to 86%, respectively. This is the first report to elucidate the pre-analytical laboratory procedures of main Southeast Asian oncology hospitals. An external quality assessment program may improve factors associated with tumor FFPE specimen quality.
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.