ArticleBMC cancer2025
Different NGS identification methods of somatic mutation sites in solid tumors impact TMB results.
Article in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomarkers and immunotherapy in endometrial cancer: mechanisms and clinical applications.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- DNA Methylation in Lung Cancer: Predictive Biomarkers for Effective Immunotherapy.International journal of general medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTumor mutation burden (TMB) is a predictive biomarker for assessing the response of various tumor types to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). TMB is quantified based on somatic mutations identified by next-generation sequencing (NGS) using targeted panel data. This study aimed to investigate whether different NGS methods will affect the results of TMB detection in solid tumors. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this study, a hybrid capture NGS method was performed to identify Tumor-only (TO) tissue and tumor tissue and white blood cells Tumor Control (TC). The accuracy and specificity of the two employed methods were evaluated by the identification and analysis of standard reference data. Based on the quality control of FFPE samples, 24 pathological and imaging confirmed solid tumor samples were compared to assess the differences between the two methods in identifying and incorporating the mutation sites and the effect on TMB detection.
resultThe data identified 298 common genes in the detection range of TO and TC methods. The detection range of these genes primarily comprised exons and some introns. The coefficient of variation (CV%) between the detected variant and true mutation frequencies was < 10%, confirming their accuracy and specificity. Both methods detected increased mutations of TP53, CDKN2 A, KRAS, PTEN, EGFR, PIK3 CA, BRAF, BRCA2, FGFR2, and NRAS. The consistency rate of TMB was observed as 92% (22/24). The chi-square test indicated a significant difference in TMB results between TO and TC (χ
conclusionThis study revealed that different algorithms and design panels for mutation filtering affect the TMB test results. When the TMB result is near the 10 mut/Mb threshold, different methods may yield different results. Moreover, a single test result can affect clinical treatment decisions. Therefore, it is recommended to use TO or TC combined with other tests for evaluating somatic mutations.
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.