ArticleOncology and therapy2025
A Cross-Sectional Study of Variant Interpretation and Reporting of NGS Data Using Tertiary Analysis Software: Navify
Article in Oncology and therapy, 2025. 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPersonalized medicine has revolutionized the clinical management of patients with solid tumors. However, the large volumes of molecular data derived from next-generation sequencing (NGS) and the lack of harmonized bioinformatics pipelines drastically impact the clinical management of patients with solid tumors. A possible solution to streamline the molecular interpretation and reporting of NGS data would be to adopt automated data analysis software. In this study, we tested the clinical efficiency of the Navify Mutation Profiler (nMP) software in improving the interpretation of NGS data analysis in diagnostic routine samples from patients with solid tumors.
methodsThis study included one coordinating institution (Federico II University of Naples) and five other Italian institutions. Variant call format (VCF) files from reference standard samples previously tested by the coordinating institution and from n = 8 diagnostic routine samples (n = 2 from colorectal carcinoma; n = 2 from non-small cell lung cancer; n = 2 from advanced melanoma; and n = 2 from patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors) and previously analyzed by each participating institution (n = 5) with standardized internal analysis workflows were uploaded onto the Navify
resultsOverall, all VCF files were successfully submitted and interpreted by the nMP system. A concordance agreement rate of 89.6% was observed between the automated and standard workflow systems. In particular, DNA and RNA molecular profiles obtained with the nMP system matched those obtained with standardized approaches in 44 out of 48 patients (91.7%) and in 11 out of 12 (91.7%) cases, respectively. In addition, the nMP system evidenced wild-type variants in 6 out of 7 (85.7%) cases.
conclusionsThe nMP system represents a valid, easily manageable, and clinically useful system to interpret NGS data on diagnostic routine samples from patients with solid tumors.
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.