ArticleMolecular oncology2025
Analysis of comprehensive genomic profiling of solid tumors with a novel assay for broad analysis in clinical diagnostics.
Article in Molecular oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comprehensive Evaluation of a 1021-Gene Panel in FFPE and Liquid Biopsy for Analytical and Clinical Use.International journal of molecular sciences · 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Somatic multigene analysis by next-generation sequencing (NGS) is routinely integrated in medical oncology for clinical decision-making. However, with the fast-growing number of recommended and required genes as well as pan-cancer biomarkers, small panels have become vastly insufficient. Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) is, thus, required to screen for clinically relevant markers. In this multicentric study, we report on an extensive analysis across seven centers comparing the results of the novel OncoDEEP CGP assay with the diagnostically validated TruSight Oncology 500 (TSO500) kit on 250 samples. Overall concordance was 90% for clinically relevant gene variants and >96% for more complex biomarkers. Agreement for fusion detection was 94% for the 11 overlapping clinically actionable driver genes. The higher coverage uniformity of OncoDEEP compared to TSO500 allows users to pool more samples per sequencing run. Tertiary data analysis, including reporting, is integrated in the OncoDEEP solution, whereas this is an add-on for TSO500. Finally, we showed that, analytically, the OncoDEEP panel performs well, thereby advocating its use for CGP of solid tumors in diagnostic laboratories, providing an all-in-one solution for optimal patient management.
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.