ArticleBritish journal of cancer2026
Diagnostic whole transcriptome sequencing in a series of 1233 FFPE solid tumor samples.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cancer-associated fusion transcripts: mechanisms, functional roles, and clinical implications.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
26 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhole Transcriptome Sequencing (WTS) is a comprehensive alternative to targeted panels for detecting gene fusions and splice variants. To integrate WTS into clinical diagnostics, we compared its performance against established fusion assays (Archer FusionPlex and TSO500 RNA).
methodsWTS was evaluated in an initial cohort of 64 FFPE tumor samples, and quality control (QC) thresholds were defined based on missed fusions correlating with low tumor cell content (TCC < 40%). Key QC metrics included TCC ≥ 40%, RNA input ≥50 ng, ≥50 million reads, and median insert size >100 bp.
resultsWTS identified 92% of known fusions in the initial cohort. Validation in 357 samples showed 100% concordance with panel-based results when QC thresholds were met. Subsequent clinical deployment across 812 diverse tumor cases detected 121 fusions, though 423 (34%) required fallback to targeted assays due to low TCC. WTS provided added value by detecting novel fusions, pathogens, and enabling oncogenic pathway analysis.
conclusionWTS is a reliable and informative method for fusion and splice variant detection in clinical diagnostics, provided rigorous pre-analytical and sequencing QC metrics are strictly applied.
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.