ArticleJournal of clinical pathology2025
Multisite clinical cross-validation and variant interpretation of a next generation sequencing panel for lymphoid cancer prognostication.
Article in Journal of clinical pathology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Role of artificial intelligence in haematolymphoid diagnostics.Histopathology · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsGenomic sequencing of lymphomas is under-represented in routine clinical testing despite having prognostic and predictive value. Clinical implementation is challenging due to a lack of consensus on reportable targets and a paucity of reference samples. We organised a cross-validation study of a lymphoma-tailored next-generation sequencing panel between two College of American Pathologists (CAP)-accredited clinical laboratories to mitigate these challenges.
methodsA consensus for the genomic targets was discussed between the two institutes based on recurrence in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and T-cell lymphomas. Using the same genomic targets, each laboratory ordered libraries independently and a cross-validation study was designed to exchange samples (8 cell lines and 22 clinical samples) and their FASTQ files.
resultsThe sensitivity of the panel when comparing different library preparation and bioinformatic workflows was between 97% and 99% and specificity was 100% when a 5% limit of detection cut-off was applied. To evaluate how the current standards for variant classification of tumours apply to lymphomas, the Association for Molecular Pathology/American Society of Clinical Oncology/CAP and OncoKB classification systems were applied to the panel. The majority of variants were assigned a possibly actionable class or likely pathogenic due to more limited evidence in the literature.
conclusionsThe cross-validation study highlights the benefits of sample and data exchange for clinical validation and provided a framework for reporting the findings in lymphoid malignancies.
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.