ArticleCurrent issues in molecular biology2025
Towards Personalized Precision Oncology: A Feasibility Study of NGS-Based Variant Analysis of FFPE CRC Samples in a Chilean Public Health System Laboratory.
Article in Current issues in molecular biology, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Massively parallel or next-generation sequencing (NGS) has enabled the genetic characterization of cancer patients, allowing the identification of somatic and germline variants associated with their diagnosis, tumor classification, and therapy response. Despite its benefits, NGS testing is not yet available in the Chilean public health system, rendering it both costly and time-consuming for patients and clinicians. Using a retrospective cohort of 67 formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) colorectal cancer (CRC) samples, we aimed to implement the identification, annotation, and prioritization of relevant actionable tumor somatic variants in our laboratory, as part of the public health system. We compared two different library preparation methodologies (amplicon-based and capture-based) and different bioinformatics pipelines for sequencing analysis to assess advantages and disadvantages of each one. We obtained 80.5% concordance between actionable variants detected in our analysis and those obtained in the Cancer Genomics Laboratory from the Universidad de Chile (62 out of 77 variants), a validated laboratory for this methodology. Notably, 98.4% (61 out of 62) of variants detected previously by the validated laboratory were also identified in our analysis. Then, comparing the hybridization capture-based library preparation methodology with the amplicon-based strategy, we found ~94% concordance between identified actionable variants across the 15 shared genes, analyzed by the TumorSec
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.