ArticleMolecular diagnosis & therapy2026
Analytical and Clinical Validation of the Oncomine Dx Express Test, an In Vitro Diagnostic-Labeled Assay, for Genomic Profiling of FFPE Tumor Samples.
Article in Molecular diagnosis & therapy, 2026. 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
33 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGenomic profiling of solid tumors by next-generation sequencing (NGS) supports personalized therapy selection, but routine clinical adoption requires robust analytical and clinical validation. The Oncomine™ Dx Express Test (ODxET) is a companion diagnostic and tumor profiling in vitro diagnostic NGS assay for detecting targeted single- and multinucleotide variants (SNVs/MNVs), insertions, deletions, copy number variations (CNVs), and RNA fusions or splice variants in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) solid tumor samples.
methodsIn a retrospective, blinded analytical study, 462 FFPE samples representing 15 tumor types and including 76 wild-type samples, were analyzed with ODxET and compared with validated orthogonal methods. Reproducibility and repeatability were evaluated across three sites, each using two operators, two sequencers, three reagent lots, and two replicates. Clinical performance for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertion detection was assessed using non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) samples from the WU-KONG1B sunvozertinib clinical trial and commercially sourced biomarker-negative specimens, with clinical effectiveness evaluated in patients treated with the approved sunvozertinib dose.
resultsThe ODxET assay showed high analytical concordance for EGFR exon 20 insertions, with a positive percent agreement (PPA) of 100% and a negative percent agreement (NPA) of 95.5%. Across the reportable range of profiling variant classes, the ODxET assay also showed high analytical concordance with orthogonal methods for SNVs (PPA = 99.5%, NPA = 100%), insertions and deletions (PPA and NPA = 100%), CNVs (PPA = 94.2%, NPA = 99.3%), and RNA variants (PPA = 95.9%, NPA = 100%). DNA variant repeatability was 100%, except for one BRAF p.V600E instance (NPA = 97.1%). RNA repeatability ranged from 88.9% (ALK fusion) to 100%. Similarly, the ODxET assay showed high clinical concordance with the clinical trial assays for EGFR exon 20 insertions, with a PPA of 97.9%, a NPA of 100%, and an overall percent agreement (OPA) of 98.9%. In the ODxET EGFR exon 20 insertion-positive/clinical trial assay-positive subgroup, response rates were consistent with those observed in the overall sunvozertinib trial population.
conclusionsThese findings support the analytical concordance, reproducibility, and clinical utility of the ODxET assay for molecular profiling of FFPE solid tumor samples.
Identifiers
42848264What 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.