論文

査読有り 本文へのリンクあり 国際誌
2019年12月1日

A comparative study of curated contents by knowledge-based curation system in cancer clinical sequencing

Scientific Reports
  • Kazuko Sakai
  • Masayuki Takeda
  • Shigeki Shimizu
  • Takayuki Takahama
  • Takeshi Yoshida
  • Satomi Watanabe
  • Tsutomu Iwasa
  • Kimio Yonesaka
  • Shinichiro Suzuki
  • Hidetoshi Hayashi
  • Hisato Kawakami
  • Yoshikane Nonagase
  • Kaoru Tanaka
  • Junji Tsurutani
  • Kazumasa Saigoh
  • Akihiko Ito
  • Tetsuya Mitsudomi
  • Kazuhiko Nakagawa
  • Kazuto Nishio
  • 全て表示

9
1
開始ページ
11340
終了ページ
11340
記述言語
英語
掲載種別
研究論文(学術雑誌)
DOI
10.1038/s41598-019-47673-9

© 2019, The Author(s). Medical oncologists are challenged to personalize medicine with scientific evidence, drug approvals, and treatment guidelines based on sequencing of clinical samples using next generation sequencer (NGS). Knowledge-based curation systems have the potential to help address this challenge. We report here the results of examining the level of evidence regarding treatment approval and clinical trials between recommendations made by Watson for Genomics (WfG), QIAGEN Clinical Insight Interpret (QCII), and Oncomine knowledge-based reporter (OKR). The tumor samples obtained from the solid cancer patients between May to June 2018 at Kindai University Hospital. The formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor samples (n = 31) were sequenced using Oncomine Comprehensive Assay v3. Variants including copy number alteration and gene fusions identified by the Ion reporter software were used commonly on three curation systems. Curation process of data were provided for 25 solid cancers using three curation systems independently. Concordance and distribution of curated evidence levels of variants were analyzed. As a result of sequencing analysis, nonsynonymous mutation (n = 58), gene fusion (n = 2) or copy number variants (n = 12) were detected in 25 cases, and subsequently subjected to knowledge-based curation systems (WfG, OKR, and QCII). The number of curated information in any systems was 51/72 variants. Concordance of evidence levels was 65.3% between WfG and OKR, 56.9% between WfG and QCII, and 66.7% between OKR and QCII. WfG provided great number of clinical trials for the variants. The annotation of resistance information was also observed. Larger differences were observed in clinical trial matching which could be due to differences in the filtering process among three curation systems. This study demonstrates knowledge-based curation systems (WfG, OKR, and QCII) could be helpful tool for solid cancer treatment decision making. Difference in non-concordant evidence levels was observed between three curation systems, especially in the information of clinical trials. This point will be improved by standardized filtering procedure and enriched database of clinical trials in Japan.

リンク情報
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-47673-9
PubMed
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31383922
PubMed Central
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6683116
Scopus
https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85070195706&origin=inward 本文へのリンクあり
Scopus Citedby
https://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85070195706&origin=inward
ID情報
  • DOI : 10.1038/s41598-019-47673-9
  • eISSN : 2045-2322
  • PubMed ID : 31383922
  • PubMed Central 記事ID : PMC6683116
  • SCOPUS ID : 85070195706

エクスポート
BibTeX RIS