ArticleBlood research2026
Comparative evaluation of two NGS-based assays for somatic hypermutation analysis of IGHV genes in chronic lymphocytic leukemia.
Article in Blood research, 2026. 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.
- Challenges in Differential Diagnosis and Management of Lymphoepithelial Sialadenitis (LESA): A Scoping Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeSomatic hypermutation (SHM) of the immunoglobulin heavy chain variable (IGHV) region is a key prognostic marker in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Traditionally, SHM status has been determined using Sanger sequencing (SS); however, next-generation sequencing (NGS) provides an alternative method for assessing both SHM status and clonal rearrangements. This study aimed to compare the performance of two commercially available NGS assays for evaluating IGH clonality and SHM status in CLL.
methodsIn this retrospective study, 42 samples from patients diagnosed with CLL were analyzed. Genomic DNA extracted from peripheral blood or bone marrow aspirates was analyzed using two commercial NGS assays: the LymphoTrack® IGHV Leader (Leader) and IGH FR1 (FR1) assays (Invivoscribe, CA, USA). SS was performed as the reference method for SHM assessment.
resultsThe Leader assay identified clonality in 95.2% of cases, whereas the FR1 assay detected clonality in 88.1%. Conclusive SHM status was determined in 90.5% of samples using the Leader assay and in 76.2% using the FR1 assay; when results from both assays were combined, the rate increased to 92.9%. Among samples with conclusive results by both SS and each NGS assay, the Leader assay demonstrated higher concordance with SS (97.1%, 34/35) than the FR1 assay (86.2%, 25/29). Greater variability in clonal detection was observed with the FR1 assay.
conclusionThese findings indicate that the Leader assay provides a more reliable assessment of SHM status, with higher concordance with SS. Although the FR1 assay may offer additional information regarding clonal patterns, its results should be interpreted cautiously. Given the limited sample size, further studies are warranted to validate these findings. Overall, the Leader assay appears to be more suitable as a primary tool for SHM evaluation, with FR1 results serving a complementary role when interpreted in clinical context.
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.