ArticleInternational journal of molecular epidemiology and genetics2018
Mutation detection using plasma circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in a cohort of asymptomatic adults at increased risk for cancer.
Article in International journal of molecular epidemiology and genetics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Modeling the Effect of Spatial Structure on Solid Tumor Evolution and Circulating Tumor DNA Composition.Cancers · 2024Article
- Modeling the effect of spatial structure on solid tumor evolution and ctDNA composition.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
- Cell-free DNA analysis in current cancer clinical trials: a review.British journal of cancer · 2022Review
- The role of cell free DNA and liquid biopsies in haematological conditions.Cancer drug resistance (Alhambra, Calif.) · 2020Review
- Aberrant Methylation Status of Tumour Suppressor Genes in Ovarian Cancer Tissue and Paired Plasma Samples.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Article
- Liquid Biopsy as a Tool for Differentiation of Leiomyomas and Sarcomas of Corpus Uteri.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Review
- Circulating Tumor DNA Assays in Clinical Cancer Research.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe primary purpose of this study was to clinically evaluate circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) with a nine gene, 96 mutation panel among subjects at increased risk for cancer with no previous cancer diagnosis. SUBJECTS AND
methodsDNA from 1059 asymptomatic subjects was analyzed for detection of low levels ctDNA using a blood plasma liquid biopsy assay. Subjects with detectable copies of ctDNA were asked to provide additional blood samples and relevant medical records throughout their one-year of participation. Subjects with a negative result were followed-up at one-year with a questionnaire.
resultsMutations were detected in 58 subjects and not detected in 1001 subjects. Among the subjects who tested positive for one or more mutations, four were diagnosed with cancer, two of which through study-triggered clinical follow-up. Two subjects who tested negative on the screen received an early cancer diagnosis over the course of the year. The sensitivity of the assay at a threshold of ≥2 copies in this population was 66.67% and specificity was 94.87%. While the negative predictive value was 99.8%, the positive predictive value was only 6.9% in this cohort. Analysis of buffy coat DNA from eight positive subjects, including one who was diagnosed with cancer, revealed matching mutations suggesting that the ctDNA could have been derived from clonal hematopoiesis.
conclusionThe observed false positive rate of ctDNA on a 96-mutation assay in an asymptomatic high-risk population is much greater than the true positive rate, limiting its usefulness as a cancer screening tool in its current form.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29531639PMC5840340What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.