ArticleMedicine international
Next‑generation sequencing failure rates in rare tumors: A real‑world single‑institution analysis.
Article in Medicine international. 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.
- Idylla™ POLE-POLD1 mutation assay for molecular characterization and risk stratification of endometrial cancers: a retrospective multicenter validation study.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reported next-generation sequencing (NGS) failure rates vary widely and are primarily based on studies of common tumor types. The present study aimed to estimate NGS failure rates in rare tumors and their association with preanalytical variables and sequencing methods in a single institution. Patients with sarcomas, rare carcinomas, and rare melanomas who underwent NGS between January 2022 and October 2023 were eligible for participation in the present study. NGS was performed as whole exome/transcriptome sequencing (WETS) based on hybrid capture or multigene commercial targeted panel. Clinicopathological and NGS-related data were extracted from clinical charts. Univariable logistic regression models were constructed with the outcome variable NGS failure and the following explanatory variables: Assay, sampling method, tissue type, and storage time. A total of 102 NGS reports from 86 patients with sarcomas (73.3%), rare carcinomas (16.3%), and melanomas (10.5%) were included. The median age of the patients was 40 years [interquartile range (IQR), 23-61 years]. Samples were obtained by biopsy (51%) and surgery (48%) and were collected from soft tissue (92.1%) or bone (7.9%) lesions. The median storage time was 2.5 months (IQR, 1.3-4.6 months). Targeted panel and WETS were used in 39.2 and 60.8% of reports, respectively. NGS failure due to insufficient material quantity or quality was observed in 14.7% of tests, corresponding to 4.7% of patients. Repeated testing was successful in 7 out of 8 patients. WETS was significantly associated with a higher probability of NGS failure due to the insufficient quantity or quality of material compared to targeted panel (odds ratio, 11.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-90.4; P=0.022). In summary, our findings suggest that the NGS failure rates in rare tumors are comparable to the rates reported in prevalent neoplasms. WETS can be associated with more frequent NGS failure than targeted panel. Retesting can often overcome the initial NGS testing failure.
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.