Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38137484›Full record

ArticleBiomedicines2023

Analytic Validation of Optical Genome Mapping in Hematological Malignancies.

Andy W C Pang, Karena Kosco, Nikhil S Sahajpal, Arthi Sridhar, Jen Hauenstein, Benjamin Clifford, Joey Estabrook, Alex D Chitsazan, Trilochan Sahoo, Anwar Iqbal and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biomedicines, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

14 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Andy W C PangBionano, San Diego, CA 92121, USA.
Karena KoscoBionano Laboratories, San Diego, CA 92121, USA.
Nikhil S SahajpalDepartment of Pathology, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta University, Augusta, GA 30912, USA.
Arthi SridharBionano Laboratories, San Diego, CA 92121, USA.
Jen HauensteinBionano, San Diego, CA 92121, USA.
Benjamin CliffordBionano, San Diego, CA 92121, USA.
Joey EstabrookBionano, San Diego, CA 92121, USA.
Alex D ChitsazanBionano, San Diego, CA 92121, USA.
Trilochan SahooBionano Laboratories, San Diego, CA 92121, USA.
Anwar IqbalDNA Microarray CGH Laboratory, Department of Pathology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY 14642, USA.
Ravindra KolheDepartment of Pathology, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta University, Augusta, GA 30912, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8283-2403
Gordana RacaDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Children's Hospital of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90027, USA.
Alex R HastieBionano, San Diego, CA 92121, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5829-2649
Alka ChaubeyBionano, San Diego, CA 92121, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0914-9237
BioNano Genomics (United States) · USAugusta University · USChildren's Hospital of Los Angeles · USUniversity of Rochester Medical Center · US

Funding

BioNano Genomics (United States) This study was funded in part by Bionano.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Structural variations (SVs) play a key role in the pathogenicity of hematological malignancies. Standard-of-care (SOC) methods such as karyotyping and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), which have been employed globally for the past three decades, have significant limitations in terms of resolution and the number of recurrent aberrations that can be simultaneously assessed, respectively. Next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based technologies are now widely used to detect clinically significant sequence variants but are limited in their ability to accurately detect SVs. Optical genome mapping (OGM) is an emerging technology enabling the genome-wide detection of all classes of SVs at a significantly higher resolution than karyotyping and FISH. OGM requires neither cultured cells nor amplification of DNA, addressing the limitations of culture and amplification biases. This study reports the clinical validation of OGM as a laboratory-developed test (LDT) according to stringent regulatory (CAP/CLIA) guidelines for genome-wide SV detection in different hematological malignancies. In total, 60 cases with hematological malignancies (of various subtypes), 18 controls, and 2 cancer cell lines were used for this study. Ultra-high-molecular-weight DNA was extracted from the samples, fluorescently labeled, and run on the Bionano Saphyr system. A total of 215 datasets, Inc.luding replicates, were generated, and analyzed successfully. Sample data were then analyzed using either disease-specific or pan-cancer-specific BED files to prioritize calls that are known to be diagnostically or prognostically relevant. Sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility were 100%, 100%, and 96%, respectively. Following the validation, 14 cases and 10 controls were run and analyzed using OGM at three outside laboratories showing reproducibility of 96.4%. OGM found more clinically relevant SVs compared to SOC testing due to its ability to detect all classes of SVs at higher resolution. The results of this validation study demonstrate the superiority of OGM over traditional SOC methods for the detection of SVs for the accurate diagnosis of various hematological malignancies.

Indexed as

copy-number variation (CNV)optical genome mapping (OGM)standard of care (SOC)structural variation (SV)

Identifiers

PMID38137484
PMCPMC10741484
OpenAlexW4389547706

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.