ArticleScientific reports2023
Clinical importance of the range of detectable variants between the Oncomine Dx target test and a conventional single-gene test for EGFR mutation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Initial biomarker testing strategies and clinical outcomes in advanced non-small cell lung cancer.iScience · 2026Article
- Real-world application of targeted next-generation sequencing for identifying molecular variants in Asian non-small-cell lung cancer.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Companion Diagnostics (CDx) Based on Molecular Biology Techniques.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- When and how should next-generation sequencing and comprehensive genomic profiling assays be performed?Cancer science · 2024Article
- Comparison of diagnostic performance between Oncomine Dx target test and AmoyDx panel for detecting actionable mutations in lung cancer.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- The Current Achievements of Multi-Gene Panel Tests in Clinical Settings for Patients with Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.Cancers · 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
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although we have experienced some cases with discordant results between the Oncomine Dx target test (ODxTT) and conventional single gene tests for detecting EGFR alterations, the clinical efficacy of EGFR-TKIs in these discordant cases remains little known. We retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients with non-small-cell lung cancer whose FFPE samples were simultaneously submitted for the ODxTT, and a PNA-LNA PCR clamp test. We evaluated the clinical efficacy of EGFR-TKIs in patients with discordant results between the two tests, focusing on the common EGFR mutations. Among 444 successful results, 10 patients had discordant results for common EGFR mutations (9 Ex 19 deletion and 1 Ex 21 L858R mutation), and all of these were detected only by the PNA-LNA PCR clamp test. Among six discordant cases treated with EGFR-TKI, the mutations detected in 3 patients were not included in the list of detectable variants that are reportable by the ODxTT, while the mutations detected in the other 3 patients were included in the list. For all three discordant cases harboring the mutations not reportable by the ODxTT, good clinical responses were demonstrated. However, among the other three discordant cases harboring the mutations reportable by the ODxTT, only one patient had a clinical response with short duration. Among the discordant cases for common EGFR mutations between the ODxTT and the conventional single gene test, there are a certain number of suitable patients responsive to EGFR-TKIs, especially when the cause of the discordant results comes from the difference in the range of detectable variants that are reportable between the tests.
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.