↓ Skip to main content

Consistency and reproducibility of next-generation sequencing and other multigene mutational assays: A worldwide ring trial study on quantitative cytological molecular reference specimens

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Cytopathology, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
28 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
Consistency and reproducibility of next-generation sequencing and other multigene mutational assays: A worldwide ring trial study on quantitative cytological molecular reference specimens
Published in
Cancer Cytopathology, May 2017
DOI 10.1002/cncy.21868
Pubmed ID
Authors

Umberto Malapelle, Clara Mayo-de-Las-Casas, Miguel A. Molina-Vila, Rafael Rosell, Spasenija Savic, Michel Bihl, Lukas Bubendorf, Manuel Salto-Tellez, Dario de Biase, Giovanni Tallini, David H. Hwang, Lynette M. Sholl, Rajyalakshmi Luthra, Birgit Weynand, Sara Vander Borght, Edoardo Missiaglia, Massimo Bongiovanni, Daniel Stieber, Philippe Vielh, Fernando Schmitt, Alessandra Rappa, Massimo Barberis, Francesco Pepe, Pasquale Pisapia, Nicola Serra, Elena Vigliar, Claudio Bellevicine, Matteo Fassan, Massimo Rugge, Carlos E. de Andrea, Maria D. Lozano, Fulvio Basolo, Gabriella Fontanini, Yuri E. Nikiforov, Suzanne Kamel-Reid, Gilda da Cunha Santos, Marina N. Nikiforova, Sinchita Roy-Chowdhuri, Giancarlo Troncone

Abstract

Molecular testing of cytological lung cancer specimens includes, beyond epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), emerging predictive/prognostic genomic biomarkers such as Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS), neuroblastoma RAS viral [v-ras] oncogene homolog (NRAS), B-Raf proto-oncogene, serine/threonine kinase (BRAF), and phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit α (PIK3CA). Next-generation sequencing (NGS) and other multigene mutational assays are suitable for cytological specimens, including smears. However, the current literature reflects single-institution studies rather than multicenter experiences. Quantitative cytological molecular reference slides were produced with cell lines designed to harbor concurrent mutations in the EGFR, KRAS, NRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA genes at various allelic ratios, including low allele frequencies (AFs; 1%). This interlaboratory ring trial study included 14 institutions across the world that performed multigene mutational assays, from tissue extraction to data analysis, on these reference slides, with each laboratory using its own mutation analysis platform and methodology. All laboratories using NGS (n = 11) successfully detected the study's set of mutations with minimal variations in the means and standard errors of variant fractions at dilution points of 10% (P = .171) and 5% (P = .063) despite the use of different sequencing platforms (Illumina, Ion Torrent/Proton, and Roche). However, when mutations at a low AF of 1% were analyzed, the concordance of the NGS results was low, and this reflected the use of different thresholds for variant calling among the institutions. In contrast, laboratories using matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time of flight (n = 2) showed lower concordance in terms of mutation detection and mutant AF quantification. Quantitative molecular reference slides are a useful tool for monitoring the performance of different multigene mutational assays, and this could lead to better standardization of molecular cytopathology procedures. Cancer Cytopathol 2017. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 9 26%
Researcher 6 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Professor 1 3%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 3%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 10 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 26%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Mathematics 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 13 38%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 03 December 2019.
All research outputs
#1,354,737
of 16,322,934 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Cytopathology
#204
of 1,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,530
of 268,774 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Cytopathology
#6
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,322,934 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,058 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 268,774 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 31 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.