ArticleMolecular diagnosis & therapy2025
Multicenter In-House Evaluation of an Amplicon-Based Next-Generation Sequencing Panel for Comprehensive Molecular Profiling.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Idylla™ POLE-POLD1 mutation assay for molecular characterization and risk stratification of endometrial cancers: a retrospective multicenter validation study.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2026Article
- Exploring the somatic mutational landscape of ovarian cancer in Estonia.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2026Article
- Homologous recombination deficiency tumor tissue testing in a real-world cohort of tubo-ovarian carcinoma patients: validation of decentralized genomic profiling in 4777 cases.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2026Article
- Comprehensive Evaluation of a 1021-Gene Panel in FFPE and Liquid Biopsy for Analytical and Clinical Use.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.