ArticleScientific reports2025
Importance of EQA/PT for the detection of genetic variants in comprehensive cancer genome testing.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) is increasingly used as a clinical laboratory test and being applied to cancer treatment; however, standardization and external quality assessments (EQA) have not been fully developed. This study performed cost-effective EQA and proficiency tests (PT) for CGP testing among multiple institutions those belong to the EQA working group of Japan Association for Clinical Laboratory Science (JACLS). This study revealed that preanalytical processes, such as derived nucleic acids (NA) extraction from formalin fixed paraffine embedded (FFPE) samples, are critical. First, EQA with extracted DNA from cell lines showed a detection rate of 100% (9 out of 9) in KRAS (c.38G > A; p.G13D), PIK3CA (p.H1047R), and B-Raf proto-oncogene, serine/threonine kinase (BRAF) (c.1799 T > A; p.V600E) in cases of > 10% variant allele frequency (VAF). However, BRAF (c.1799 T > A; p.V600E) detection decreased to 67% (6 out of 9) for a VAF of 4.9%. Second, when DNA was extracted from FFPE samples, pathogenic variants and variants with companion diagnostic indications were detected in all 10 participating laboratories. Each variant had < 20% VAFs on average (8.1-19.1%) and wide variability among laboratories was observed (relative standard deviation, 13-60%). Nonetheless, BRAF (c.1798_1799delinsAA; p.V600K) of 8.1% VAF, EGFR (c.2235_2249del; p.E746_A750del) of 9.7% VAF, and EGFR (c.2254_2277del; p.S752_I759del) of 9.8% VAF were detected with 70% (7/10), 70% (7/10), and 60% (6/10) frequency, respectively. Therefore, 10% VAF in pre-analytic processing for DNA extraction from FFPE was critical for variant detection in CGP analysis. Further, incorrect results were reported in case independent variant calling of BRAF; c.1798_1799delinsAA (p.V600K) was mistakenly interpreted as c.1798G > A, and c.1799 T > A was on the other strand. In conclusion, the EQA/PT among 10 institutes with common samples revealed the importance of VAF in pre-analysis and helped us understand the significance of the pipeline and common pitfalls usually ignored by the internal quality control in a single institute.
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.