Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40799244›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025

NGS coverage accurately predicts

Adam Kowalewski, Janna Siemanowski-Hrach, Thomas Stehle, Jan Rehker, Udo Siebolts, Sabine Merkelbach-Bruse, Carina Heydt

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Adam Kowalewski *Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Institute of Pathology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Janna Siemanowski-Hrach *Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Institute of Pathology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Thomas StehleFaculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Institute for Neuropathology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Jan RehkerFaculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Institute of Pathology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Udo SieboltsFaculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Institute of Pathology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Sabine Merkelbach-BruseFaculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Institute of Pathology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Carina HeydtFaculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Institute of Pathology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Fluorescence Methods: We analyzed 66 primary non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) samples, tested by both NGS and FISH. FISH was conducted to detect gene amplifications in Results: Amplification was detected in 46 (68.7%) samples. NGS fold changes correlated strongly with FISH Gene/CEN ratios (Spearman's ρ = 0.720, p < 0.001) and gene copy number per cell (Spearman's ρ = 0.847, p < 0.001). Among FISH-negative cases, NGS fold change ranged from 0.57 to 1.95, while in FISH-positive cases, it ranged from 2.11 to 25.08. Conclusion: NGS fold changes demonstrate significant correlation with FISH metrics, supporting NGS as a promising marker for gene amplification. A fold change cutoff of 2.0 effectively distinguishes amplified from non-amplified cases, with NGS achieving a high degree of predictive reliability across the tested genes.

Indexed as

amplificationcancercoverageHER2lungmetNGSNSCLC

Identifiers

PMID40799244
PMCPMC12340238

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.