ArticleScientific reports2024
The discrepancy of somatic BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants from two different platforms in epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancer.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The somatic BRCA1 or BRCA2 Pathogenic Variant (PV)/Likely PV (LPV) from Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) is the most important biomarker for PARP inhibitor use and maintenance-targeted therapies. A discrepancy in the detection rates of BRCA1 and BRCA2 PV/LPV was identified among the NGS platforms. The objective of this study was to compare the somatic BRCA results from two distinct platforms using the same cohort and to identify the causes of these differences. Patients with epithelial ovarian cancer who concurrently underwent tumor NGS using two different platforms between January 2022 and June 2023 were included in this study. The two platforms used were in-house tumor NGS (Illumina NextSeq 550Dx, SureSelectXT library kit, and datasets from 1000 Genomes, ESP6500, ExAC, and ClinVar) and GreenPlan homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) test (Illumina NextSeq 550Dx, customized Twist Bioscience library kit, and datasets from COSMIC and OncoKB). The results of somatic mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 were compared between the two platforms. Of the 118 patients, 11.9% (n = 14) exhibited a discordant interpretation of BRCA1 or BRCA2 between the two platforms. Eleven patients (9.3%) exhibited negative results in the in-house platform but positive results (eight seven as PV of BRCA1, one as PV of BRCA2, one as LPV of BRCA1, and two as LPV of BRCA2) in the GreenPlan HRD test, while three patients (2.6%) had positive BRCA pathogenic variants (two as PV of BRCA1 [c.3340G > T, c.5152 + 3 A > C], one as LPV of BRCA2 [c.8174G > T], and one as LPV of BRCA1 [c.5017_5019delCAC]) in the in-house platform but a negative result in the GreenPlan HRD test. The discordance rate of somatic BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations from different platforms was approximately 12%. In the case of the strong implication of BRCA PV/LPV with a negative result with one genetic test, different platforms could be considered in limited cases. Careful interpretation and further studies for the cross-validation of gene analysis platforms are needed.
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.