ArticleMolecular diagnosis & therapy2025
Evaluation of the Oncomine Comprehensive Assay Plus NGS Panel and the OncoScan CNV Assay for Homologous Recombination Deficiency Detection.
Article in Molecular diagnosis & therapy, 2025. 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.
- Homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) testing of high-grade serous carcinoma using cytological samples.BJC reports · 2026Article
- Evaluation of homologous recombination testing in ovarian carcinoma.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2026Article
- Clinical benefit of additional whole-exome sequencing over panel sequencing in an all-comer real-world molecular tumor board.ESMO open · 2025Article
- Clinical Characteristics and Survival of Ovarian Cancer Patients According to Homologous Recombination Deficiency Status.Cancers · 2025Article
- Genomic instability andFrontiers in oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTesting for homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) as a biomarker in relation to poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) treatment in ovarian cancer is done by sequencing of the BRCA1/2 genes and/or by assessing a genomic instability signature. Here we present data obtained with two different methods for genomic instability testing: the Oncomine™ Comprehensive Assay Plus (OCA Plus) NGS panel and the OncoScan CNV assay.
methodsThe retrospective analytical study included 80 ovarian cancer samples of patients previously referred to clinical Myriad testing (reference cohort), and 50 ovarian cancer samples from patients collected as part of the Pelvic Mass study. OCA Plus NGS libraries were sequenced with the Ion S5™XL Sequencer and analyzed with the Ion Reporter™ Software v5.20 for calculation of the genomic instability metric (GIM). In addition, all samples were tested with the OncoScan CNV FFPE Assay and analyzed with a previously published R-algorithm for generation of an in-house genomic instability score (in-house GIS).
resultsThe OCA Plus assay had a concordance to the reference of 89% on samples with a tumor fraction ≥ 30% (auto-calculated or via molecular estimation). A total of 15 samples in the reference cohort had a calculated tumor fraction < 30% in the OCA Plus assay. In these, the concordance to reference was only 60%. For the OncoScan CNV in-house GIS a local cutoff point of ≥ 50 was calculated. This gave a concordance to the reference of 85%, with 91% of the samples in the reference cohort passing quality control (QC) on tumor fraction. Both assays had a high sensitivity for the detection of genomic instability in samples with pathogenic or likely pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations, with 12/13 being GIM positive (OCA Plus assay) and 13/13 being in-house GIS positive (OncoScan CNV assay).
conclusionsThe OCA Plus assay and the OncoScan CNV assay show a high but not complete concordance to reference standard homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) detection. The main reason for QC failure or non-concordance in our study was a low tumor fraction estimated in the assay, despite the selection of material by a pathologist with an inclusion criterion of > 30% tumor. QC steps should include careful tumor content evaluation, and results on samples with < 30% tumor should not be reported.
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.