Sequencing and curation strategies for identifying candidate glioblastoma treatments.
Clicks: 359
ID: 60198
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
66.3
/100
359 views
250 readers
Trending
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #11 of 16 articles by views in bmc medical genomics
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Prompted by the revolution in high-throughput sequencing and its potential impact for treating cancer patients, we initiated a clinical research study to compare the ability of different sequencing assays and analysis methods to analyze glioblastoma tumors and generate real-time potential treatment options for physicians.A consortium of seven institutions in New York City enrolled 30 patients with glioblastoma and performed tumor whole genome sequencing (WGS) and RNA sequencing (RNA-seq; collectively WGS/RNA-seq); 20 of these patients were also analyzed with independent targeted panel sequencing. We also compared results of expert manual annotations with those from an automated annotation system, Watson Genomic Analysis (WGA), to assess the reliability and time required to identify potentially relevant pharmacologic interventions.WGS/RNAseq identified more potentially actionable clinical results than targeted panels in 90% of cases, with an average of 16-fold more unique potentially actionable variants identified per individual; 84 clinically actionable calls were made using WGS/RNA-seq that were not identified by panels. Expert annotation and WGA had good agreement on identifying variants [mean sensitivity = 0.71, SD = 0.18 and positive predictive value (PPV) = 0.80, SD = 0.20] and drug targets when the same variants were called (mean sensitivity = 0.74, SD = 0.34 and PPV = 0.79, SD = 0.23) across patients. Clinicians used the information to modify their treatment plan 10% of the time.These results present the first comprehensive comparison of technical and machine augmented analysis of targeted panel and WGS/RNA-seq to identify potential cancer treatments.
| Reference Key |
frank2019sequencingbmc
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Frank, Mayu O;Koyama, Takahiko;Rhrissorrakrai, Kahn;Robine, Nicolas;Utro, Filippo;Emde, Anne-Katrin;Chen, Bo-Juen;Arora, Kanika;Shah, Minita;Geiger, Heather;Felice, Vanessa;Dikoglu, Esra;Rahman, Sadia;Fang, Alice;Vacic, Vladimir;Bergmann, Ewa A;Vogel, Julia L Moore;Reeves, Catherine;Khaira, Depinder;Calabro, Anthony;Kim, Duyang;Lamendola-Essel, Michelle F;Esteves, Cecilia;Agius, Phaedra;Stolte, Christian;Boockvar, John;Demopoulos, Alexis;Placantonakis, Dimitris G;Golfinos, John G;Brennan, Cameron;Bruce, Jeffrey;Lassman, Andrew B;Canoll, Peter;Grommes, Christian;Daras, Mariza;Diamond, Eli;Omuro, Antonio;Pentsova, Elena;Orange, Dana E;Harvey, Stephen J;Posner, Jerome B;Michelini, Vanessa V;Jobanputra, Vaidehi;Zody, Michael C;Kelly, John;Parida, Laxmi;Wrzeszczynski, Kazimierz O;Royyuru, Ajay K;Darnell, Robert B; |
| Journal | bmc medical genomics |
| Year | 2019 |
| DOI |
10.1186/s12920-019-0500-0
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.