ArticleInternational journal of clinical oncology2024
An approach for improvement of the accuracy of cancer gene panel testing.
Article in International journal of clinical oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the somatic mutational landscape of ovarian cancer in Estonia.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2026Article
- Companion Diagnostics (CDx) Based on Molecular Biology Techniques.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTissue-based comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) is increasingly being employed for genotype-directed therapies in patients with advanced cancer. However, tissue availability may limit their potential applications. In Japan, the cost of cancer gene panel tests is covered by public insurance for patients diagnosed with advanced solid tumors once in their lifetime. Therefore, it is essential to improve the success rate (reportability) and accuracy of CGP tests. The purpose of this study was to identify the factors associated with efficient and accurate CGP testing using relevant information obtained from real-world data.
methodsThis study included 159 samples analyzed using tumor-only panel FoundationOne® CDx cancer genome profiling (F1CDx) and 85 samples analyzed using matched-pair panel OncoGuide™ NCC Oncopanel system (NCCOP) at St. Marianna University Hospital. Sample characteristics (fixation conditions, storage period, histology, tumor cell ratio, and genomic tumor cell content), CGP performance, and quality control status were evaluated across all 244 tested samples.
resultsIn 237/244 samples (97.1%), CGP testing results were successfully obtained [F1CDx, 99.4% (158/159) and NCCOP, 92.9% (79/85)]. An increased number of fibroblasts, inflammatory cells, and necrotic tumor cells, long-term storage, and/or prolonged fixation of tissue sections were involved in the unreported results and/or qualified CGP results. In addition, a negative correlation between median insert size values and ΔΔCq was observed in the NCCOP system.
conclusionWe identified various factors associated with efficient and accurate CGP testing using relevant information obtained from real-world data, suggesting that thorough selection and preparation of tissue sections could optimize CGP and maximize useful information.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38472663What 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.