↓ Skip to main content

Diagnostic Yield of Clinical Tumor and Germline Whole-Exome Sequencing for Children With Solid Tumors

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Oncology, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
11 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
43 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
374 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
259 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Diagnostic Yield of Clinical Tumor and Germline Whole-Exome Sequencing for Children With Solid Tumors
Published in
JAMA Oncology, May 2016
DOI 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.5699
Pubmed ID
Authors

D. Williams Parsons, Angshumoy Roy, Yaping Yang, Tao Wang, Sarah Scollon, Katie Bergstrom, Robin A. Kerstein, Stephanie Gutierrez, Andrea K. Petersen, Abhishek Bavle, Frank Y. Lin, Dolores H. López-Terrada, Federico A. Monzon, M. John Hicks, Karen W. Eldin, Norma M. Quintanilla, Adekunle M. Adesina, Carrie A. Mohila, William Whitehead, Andrew Jea, Sanjeev A. Vasudevan, Jed G. Nuchtern, Uma Ramamurthy, Amy L. McGuire, Susan G. Hilsenbeck, Jeffrey G. Reid, Donna M. Muzny, David A. Wheeler, Stacey L. Berg, Murali M. Chintagumpala, Christine M. Eng, Richard A. Gibbs, Sharon E. Plon

Abstract

Whole-exome sequencing (WES) has the potential to reveal tumor and germline mutations of clinical relevance, but the diagnostic yield for pediatric patients with solid tumors is unknown. To characterize the diagnostic yield of combined tumor and germline WES for children with solid tumors. Unselected children with newly diagnosed and previously untreated central nervous system (CNS) and non-CNS solid tumors were prospectively enrolled in the BASIC3 study at a large academic children's hospital during a 23-month period from August 2012 through June 2014. Blood and tumor samples underwent WES in a certified clinical laboratory with genetic results categorized on the basis of perceived clinical relevance and entered in the electronic health record. Clinical categorization of somatic mutations; frequencies of deleterious germline mutations related to patient phenotype and incidental medically-actionable mutations. Of the first 150 participants (80 boys and 70 girls, mean age, 7.4 years), tumor samples adequate for WES were available from 121 patients (81%). Somatic mutations of established clinical utility (category I) were reported in 4 (3%) of 121 patients, with mutations of potential utility (category II) detected in an additional 29 (24%) of 121 patients. CTNNB1 was the gene most frequently mutated, with recurrent mutations in KIT, TSC2, and MAPK pathway genes (BRAF, KRAS, and NRAS) also identified. Mutations in consensus cancer genes (category III) were found in an additional 24 (20%) of 121 tumors. Fewer than half of somatic mutations identified were in genes known to be recurrently mutated in the tumor type tested. Diagnostic germline findings related to patient phenotype were discovered in 15 (10%) of 150 cases: 13 pathogenic or likely pathogenic dominant mutations in adult and pediatric cancer susceptibility genes (including 2 each in TP53, VHL, and BRCA1), 1 recessive liver disorder with hepatocellular carcinoma (TJP2), and 1 renal diagnosis (CLCN5). Incidental findings were reported in 8 (5%) of 150 patients. Most patients harbored germline uncertain variants in cancer genes (98%), pharmacogenetic variants (89%), and recessive carrier mutations (85%). Tumor and germline WES revealed mutations in a broad spectrum of genes previously implicated in both adult and pediatric cancers. Combined reporting of tumor and germline WES identified diagnostic and/or potentially actionable findings in nearly 40% of newly diagnosed pediatric patients with solid tumors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 43 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 259 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 258 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 48 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 12%
Other 25 10%
Student > Master 24 9%
Student > Bachelor 22 8%
Other 56 22%
Unknown 52 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 75 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 64 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 26 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 2%
Other 23 9%
Unknown 60 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 120. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 December 2021.
All research outputs
#354,203
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Oncology
#581
of 3,346 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,382
of 315,638 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Oncology
#18
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,346 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 84.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,638 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.