ArticleJTO clinical and research reports2025
The Added Value of Genome-Wide Copy Numbers to Objectively Resolve Clonality of Multiple Tumors With Pulmonary Involvement and Ambiguous or Inconclusive Mutational Diagnosis.
Article in JTO clinical and research 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The incidence of patients presenting with multiple cancers (MCs) and pulmonary involvement is increasing. Although next-generation sequencing mutation panels can discern metastases (clonal) from separate primary cancers (nonclonal), it does not warrant a reliable diagnosis for all patients despite significant therapeutic implications. We evaluated the added value of genome-wide copy number aberrations (CNAs) for clonality diagnosis. Methods: Two cohorts were assembled: 41 clonal and 41 nonclonal pairs from the TRACERx cohort and 21 MC pairs that had sufficient DNA for whole-exome sequencing (WES) from 120 patients diagnosed using CNA analysis in our routine pathology practice between 2016 and 2022. Clonality was determined by comparing tumor pairs using (1) WES mutations as a definitive standard, (2) a conventional mutation panel with an adapted 2024 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer algorithm, and (3) CNAs with log-likelihood ratio and Pearson correlation metrics. Results: All tumor pairs classified as definite "clonal" or "nonclonal" by mutation analysis (TRACERx: 35 of 82 [43%], MC cohort: 6 of 21 [29%]) were in concordance with WES and CNAs. Of the tumor pairs classified as "probable nonclonal" or "inconclusive" by mutation analysis (TRACERx: 47 of 82 [57%], MC cohort: 15 of 21 [71%]), most could be correctly reclassified by CNAs (TRACERx: 46 of 47 [98%], MC cohort: 15 of 16 [94%]). For each cohort, one tumor pair remained inconclusive. Furthermore, we present a CNA clonality workflow for implementation in molecular diagnostics. Conclusion: Genome-wide CNA analysis provides complementary information to resolve clonality of MCs with ambiguous mutational clonality status, enhancing clinical decision-making.
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.