ArticleFrontiers in oncology2023
Molecular profiling of solid tumors by next-generation sequencing: an experience from a clinical laboratory.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimization of a hybridization-based target enrichment protocol for precision oncology.Molecular biology reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Advancing Cancer Care in Colombia: Results of the First In Situ Implementation of Comprehensive Genomic Profiling.Journal of personalized medicine · 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Personalized targeted therapies have transformed management of several solid tumors. Timely and accurate detection of clinically relevant genetic variants in tumor is central to the implementation of molecular targeted therapies. To facilitate precise molecular testing in solid tumors, targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) assays have emerged as a valuable tool. In this study, we provide an overview of the technical validation, diagnostic yields, and spectrum of variants observed in 3,164 solid tumor samples that were tested as part of the standard clinical diagnostic assessment in an academic healthcare institution over a period of 2 years. Methods: The Ion Ampliseq™ Cancer Hotspot Panel v2 assay (ThermoFisher) that targets ~2,800 COSMIC mutations from 50 oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes was validated, and a total of 3,164 tumor DNA samples were tested in 2 years. A total of 500 tumor samples were tested by the comprehensive panel containing all the 50 genes. Other samples, including 1,375 lung cancer, 692 colon cancer, 462 melanoma, and 135 brain cancer, were tested by tumor-specific targeted subpanels including a few clinically actionable genes. Results: Of 3,164 patient samples, 2,016 (63.7%) tested positive for at least one clinically relevant variant. Of 500 samples tested by a comprehensive panel, 290 had a clinically relevant variant with TP53, KRAS, and PIK3CA being the most frequently mutated genes. The diagnostic yields in major tumor types were as follows: breast (58.4%), colorectal (77.6%), lung (60.4%), pancreatic (84.6%), endometrial (72.4%), ovary (57.1%), and thyroid (73.9%). Tumor-specific targeted subpanels also demonstrated high diagnostic yields: lung (69%), colon (61.2%), melanoma (69.7%), and brain (20.7%). Co-occurrence of mutations in more than one gene was frequently observed. Conclusions: The findings of our study demonstrate the feasibility of integrating an NGS-based gene panel screen as part of a standard diagnostic protocol for solid tumor assessment. High diagnostic rates enable significant clinical impact including improved diagnosis, prognosis, and clinical management in patients with solid tumors.
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.