ArticleScientific reports2024
Comparison of diagnostic performance between Oncomine Dx target test and AmoyDx panel for detecting actionable mutations in lung cancer.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Establishment of a Flow Cytometry Protocol for Binarily Detecting Circulating Tumor Cells with EGFR Mutation.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- MET Alterations in Cancer and MET-Targeted Therapy: Detection Strategies, Treatment Efficacy, and Emerging Technologies.Targeted oncology · 2025Review
- Advances in cancer genomics and precision oncology.Genes & genomics · 2025Review
- Companion Diagnostics (CDx) Based on Molecular Biology Techniques.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- SuccessfulCase reports in oncologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Companion diagnostic (CDx) tests play important roles in identifying oncogenic driver genes and tailoring effective molecularly targeted therapies for lung cancer patients. In Japan, the Oncomine Dx target test (ODxTT) and the AmoyDx pan lung cancer PCR panel (AmoyDx) are prominent CDx tests and only one of these tests is covered by the domestic insurance system. However, these CDx tests cover different target regions and apply different technologies (ODxTT is amplicon-based next-generation sequencing and AmoyDx is multiplex PCR-based assay), which may lead to missing of actionable mutations affecting patient prognosis. Here, we performed a direct comparison analysis of 1059 genetic alterations of eight driver genes from 131 samples and evaluated the concordance between two CDx tests for detecting actionable variants and fusions. When excluding the eight uncovered variants (ODxTT: two variants, AmoyDx: six variants), the overall percent agreement was 97.6% (1026/1051) with 89.0% of overall positive percent agreement (89/100) and 98.5% of overall negative percent agreement (937/951). Of the 25 discordant genetic alterations, two were undetected despite being covered in the AmoyDx (one EGFR variant and one ROS1 fusion). Furthermore, there were potential false positives in the ODxTT (nine MET exon 14 skippings) and in the AmoyDx (five variants, six ROS1 and three RET fusions). These potential false positives in the AmoyDx likely due to non-specific amplification, which was validated by the unique molecular barcoding sequencing. The ODxTT missed two uncovered EGFR rare variants, which was visually confirmed in the raw sequencing data. Our study provides insights into real-world performance of CDx tests for lung cancer and ensures reliability to advance precision medicine.
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.