ArticleNPJ precision oncology2024
Enhancing the quality of panel-based tumor mutation burden assessment: a comprehensive study of real-world and in-silico outcomes.
Article in NPJ precision oncology, 2024. 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.
- Wearable technology for athletes: material innovations, performance monitoring, and emerging paradigms.Mikrochimica acta · 2026Review
- TMB as a predictive biomarker for ICI response in TNBC: current evidence and future directions for augmented anti-tumor responses.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2025Review
- Of Context, Quality, and Complexity: Fine-Combing Tumor Mutational Burden in Immunotherapy-Treated Cancers.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2025Review
- The challenges and opportunities of applying tumour mutational burden analysis to precision cancer medicine.Cambridge prisms. Precision medicine · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Targeted panel-based tumor mutation burden (TMB) assays are widely employed to guide immunotherapy for patients with solid tumors. However, the accuracy and consistency of this method can be compromised due to the variability in technical details across different laboratories, particularly in terms of panel size, somatic mutation detection and TMB calculation rules. Currently, systematic evaluations of the impact of these technical factors on existing assays and best practice recommendations remain lacking. We assessed the performance of 50 participating panel-based TMB assays involving 38 unique methods using cell line samples. In silico experiments utilizing TCGA MC3 datasets were performed to further dissect the impact of technical factors. Here we show that the panel sizes beyond 1.04 Mb and 389 genes are necessary for the basic discrete accuracy, as determined by over 40,000 synthetic panels. The somatic mutation detection should maintain a reciprocal gap of recall and precision less than 0.179 for reliable psTMB calculation results. The inclusion of synonymous, nonsense and hotspot mutations could enhance the accuracy of panel-based TMB assay. A 5% variant allele frequency cut-off is suitable for TMB assays using tumor samples with at least 20% tumor purity. In conclusion, this multicenter study elucidates the major technical factors as sources of variability in panel-based TMB assays and proposed comprehensive recommendations for the enhancement of accuracy and consistency. These findings will assist clinical laboratories in optimizing the methodological details through bioinformatic experiments to enhance the reliability of panel-based methods.
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.