ArticleCancers2023
Clinical Utility of Optical Genome Mapping and 523-Gene Next Generation Sequencing Panel for Comprehensive Evaluation of Myeloid Cancers.
Article in Cancers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genomic Evaluation of AML-Main Techniques and Novel Approaches.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Review
- Analysis of comprehensive genomic profiling of solid tumors with a novel assay for broad analysis in clinical diagnostics.Molecular oncology · 2025Article
- Real-World Clinical Utility of Targeted RNA Sequencing in Leukemia Diagnosis and Management.Cancers · 2024Article
- Review
- Detection of Genomic Structural Variations Associated with Drug Sensitivity and Resistance in Acute Leukemia.Cancers · 2024Article
- Optical Genome Mapping: A Machine-Based Platform in Cytogenomics.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The standard-of-care (SOC) for genomic testing of myeloid cancers primarily relies on karyotyping/fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) (cytogenetic analysis) and targeted gene panels (usually ≤54 genes) that harbor hotspot pathogenic variants (molecular genetic analysis). Despite this combinatorial approach, ~50% of myeloid cancer genomes remain cytogenetically normal, and the limited sequencing variant profiles obtained from targeted panels are unable to resolve the molecular etiology of many myeloid tumors. In this study, we evaluated the performance and clinical utility of combinatorial use of optical genome mapping (OGM) and a 523-gene next-generation sequencing (NGS) panel for comprehensive genomic profiling of 30 myeloid tumors and compared it to SOC cytogenetic methods (karyotyping and FISH) and a 54-gene NGS panel. OGM and the 523-gene NGS panel had an analytical concordance of 100% with karyotyping, FISH, and the 54-gene panel, respectively. Importantly, the IPSS-R cytogenetic risk group changed from very good/good to very poor in 22% of MDS (2/9) cases based on comprehensive profiling (karyotyping, FISH, and 54-gene panel vs. OGM and 523-gene panel), while additionally identifying six compound heterozygous events of potential clinical relevance in six cases (6/30, 20%). This cost-effective approach of using OGM and a 523-gene NGS panel for comprehensive genomic profiling of myeloid cancers demonstrated increased yield of actionable targets that can potentially result in improved clinical outcomes.
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.