Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is a powerful platform for identifying cancer mutations. Routine clinical adoption of NGS requires optimized quality control metrics to ensure accurate results. To assess the robustness of our clinical NGS pipeline, we analyzed the results of 304 solid tumor and hematologic malignancy specimens tested simultaneously by NGS and one or more targeted single-gene tests (EGFR, KRAS, BRAF, NPM1, FLT3, and JAK2). For samples that passed our validated tumor percentage and DNA quality and quantity thresholds, there was perfect concordance between NGS and targeted single-gene tests with the exception of two FLT3 internal tandem duplications that fell below the stringent pre-established reporting threshold but were readily detected by manual inspection. In addition, NGS identified clinically significant mutations not covered by single-gene tests. These findings confirm NGS as a reliable platform for routine clinical use when appropriate quality control metrics, such as tumor percentage and DNA quality cutoffs, are in place. Based on our findings, we suggest a simple workflow that should facilitate adoption of clinical oncologic NGS services at other institutions.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 August 2021.
All research outputs
#2,502,930
of 25,508,813 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#30,516
of 222,350 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,472
of 314,894 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#839
of 5,396 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,508,813 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 222,350 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 314,894 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,396 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
