Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39798063›Full record

ArticleMolecular diagnosis & therapy2025

Multicenter In-House Evaluation of an Amplicon-Based Next-Generation Sequencing Panel for Comprehensive Molecular Profiling.

Eloisa Jantus-Lewintre, Alessandra Rappa, Dina Ruano, Demi van Egmond, Sandra Gallach, Dilce Gozuyasli, Cecília Durães, José Luis Costa, Carlos Camps, Ludovic Lacroix and 3 more

Abstract readEvaluation StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular diagnosis & therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

13 authors.

Eloisa Jantus-LewintreFundación Investigación Hospital General Universitario de València, Universitat Politècnica de València, CIBERONC, Valencia, Spain.
Alessandra RappaIstituto Europeo di Oncologia, IRCCS, Via Adamello 16, 20139, Milan, Italy.
Dina RuanoLeiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Demi van EgmondLeiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Sandra GallachFundación Investigación Hospital General Universitario de València, Universitat Politècnica de València, CIBERONC, Valencia, Spain.
Dilce GozuyasliThermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA.
Cecília DurãesThermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA.
José Luis CostaThermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA.
Carlos CampsConsorcio Hospital General Universitario de València, Universitat de València, CIBERONC, Valencia, Spain.
Ludovic LacroixInstitut Gustave Roussy, Paris, France.
Karl KashoferMedical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Tom van WezelLeiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Massimo BarberisIstituto Europeo di Oncologia, IRCCS, Via Adamello 16, 20139, Milan, Italy. massimo.barberis@ieo.it.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPredicting response to targeted cancer therapies increasingly relies on both simple and complex genetic biomarkers. Comprehensive genomic profiling using high-throughput assays must be evaluated for reproducibility and accuracy compared with existing methods.

methodsThis study is a multicenter evaluation of the Oncomine™ Comprehensive Assay Plus (OCA Plus) Pan-Cancer Research Panel for comprehensive genomic profiling of solid tumors. A series of 193 research samples (125 DNA and 68 RNA samples) was analyzed to evaluate the correlation and concordance of the OCA Plus panel with orthogonal methods, as well as its reproducibility (n = 5 DNA samples) across laboratories.

resultsThe success rate for DNA and RNA sequencing was 96.6% and 89.7%, respectively. In a single workflow, the OCA Plus panel provided a detailed genomic profile with a high success rate for all biomarkers tested: single nucleotide variants/indels, copy number variants, and fusions, as well as complex biomarkers such as microsatellite instability, tumor mutational burden, and homologous recombination deficiency. The concordance for single nucleotide variants/indels was 94.8%, for copy number variants 96.5%, for fusions 94.2%, for microsatellite instability 80.8%, for tumor mutational burden 81.3%, and for homologous recombination deficiency 100%. The results showed high reproducibility across the five European research centers, each analyzing shared pre-characterized tissue biopsies (average of 1890 single nucleotide variants/indels per sample).

conclusionsThis multicenter evaluation of the OCA Plus panel confirms the results of previous single-center studies and demonstrates the high reproducibility and accuracy of this assay.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorGene Expression ProfilingHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingNeoplasmsDNA Copy Number VariationsGenomicsHumansMicrosatellite InstabilityMutationReproducibility of ResultsBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID39798063
PMCPMC11860996

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.