Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38285243›Full record

ReviewJournal of neuro-oncology2024

Next generation sequencing of high-grade adult-type diffuse glioma in the Netherlands: interlaboratory variation in the primary diagnostic and recurrent setting.

Mark P van Opijnen, Marike L D Broekman, Edwin Cuppen, Hendrikus J Dubbink, Arja Ter Elst, Ronald van Eijk, Angelika Mühlebner, Casper Jansen, Robert van der Geize, Ernst-Jan M Speel and 5 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

15 authors.

Mark P van OpijnenDepartment of Neurosurgery, Haaglanden Medical Center, The Hague, The Netherlands. m.p.van_opijnen@lumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2400-4626
Marike L D BroekmanDepartment of Neurosurgery, Haaglanden Medical Center, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Edwin CuppenHartwig Medical Foundation, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Hendrikus J DubbinkDepartment of Pathology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Arja Ter ElstDepartment of Pathology and Medical Biology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Ronald van EijkDepartment of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Angelika MühlebnerDepartment of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Casper JansenLaboratorium Pathologie Oost-Nederland, Hengelo, The Netherlands.
Robert van der GeizeLaboratorium Pathologie Oost-Nederland, Hengelo, The Netherlands.
Ernst-Jan M SpeelDepartment of Pathology, GROW-School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Patricia J T A GroenenDepartment of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Filip Y F de VosDepartment of Medical Oncology, Utrecht University Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Pieter WesselingDepartment of Pathology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Wendy W J de LengDepartment of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Sybren L N MaasDepartment of Pathology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeNext generation sequencing (NGS) is an important tool used in clinical practice to obtain the required molecular information for accurate diagnostics of high-grade adult-type diffuse glioma (HGG). Since individual centers use either in-house produced or standardized panels, interlaboratory variation could play a role in the practice of HGG diagnosis and treatment. This study aimed to investigate the current practice in NGS application for both primary and recurrent HGG.

methodsThis nationwide Dutch survey used the expertise of (neuro)pathologists and clinical scientists in molecular pathology (CSMPs) by sending online questionnaires on clinical and technical aspects. Primary outcome was an overview of panel composition in the different centers for diagnostic practice of HGG. Secondary outcomes included practice for recurrent HGG and future perspectives.

resultsOut of twelve neuro-oncology centers, the survey was filled out by eleven (neuro)pathologists and seven CSMPs. The composition of the diagnostic NGS panels differed in each center with numbers of genes ranging from 12 to 523. Differences are more pronounced when tests are performed to find therapeutic targets in the case of recurrent disease: about half of the centers test for gene fusions (60%) and tumor mutational burden (40%).

conclusionCurrent notable interlaboratory variations as illustrated in this study should be reduced in order to refine diagnostics and improve precision oncology. In-house developed tests, standardized panels and routine application of broad gene panels all have their own advantages and disadvantages. Future research would be of interest to study the clinical impact of variation in diagnostic approaches.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsGliomaAdultHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansNetherlandsPrecision MedicineAdultHigh-grade gliomaNext generation sequencingPracticeVariations

Identifiers

PMID38285243
PMCPMC10876806

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.