ArticlePathology oncology research : POR2020
External Quality Assurance of Current Technology for the Testing of Cancer-Associated Circulating Free DNA Variants.
Article in Pathology oncology research : POR, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Laboratory practices for next-generation sequencing-based circulating tumor DNA analysis: insights from a comprehensive survey in China.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2026Article
- Results of a worldwide external quality assessment of cfDNA testing in lung Cancer.BMC cancer · 2022Article
- Liquid Biopsy Using Cell-Free or Circulating Tumor DNA in the Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Cellular and molecular gastroenterology and hepatology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Liquid biopsy testing is rapidly emerging as a diagnostic means of identifying circulating free DNA (cfDNA) disease-associated variants. However, the reporting of cfDNA variants remains inconsistent due in part to the application of multiple testing pipelines which raise uncertainty about current cfDNA detection efficiency. External quality assurance (EQA) programs are required to monitor, evaluate and help improve laboratory performance for cfDNA variant detection and in clinical interpretation. This study therefore evaluated the performance of diagnostic laboratories currently performing cfDNA testing in China, Australia and New Zealand. A total of 89 laboratories participated in this EQA program. Reference testing material comprised of cfDNA manufactured to contain six different genotypes in four different genes (EGFR, KRAS, BRAF, NRAS). The predicted genotypic variant allelic frequencies ranged between 0.5% - 2.5%. Proficiency testing used a z-score on the laboratory consensus allelic frequency data to compare laboratory performance for the detection of the different genotypes. Allelic frequency genotyping data were received from 88 of the 89 laboratories. Next generation sequencing and digital PCR testing platforms were primarily used by participants in this pilot EQA. The average consensus data for each cfDNA genotype identified allelic frequencies ranging between 0.39% - 4.4%. Z-score proficiency testing found that >92% of clinical laboratories were concordant for detecting the cfDNA variants. The data from this pilot study suggest that current cfDNA testing platforms can detect cfDNA allelic frequency variants from 0.39% and above with high levels of confidence. In addition, these data highlight the importance of laboratories enrolling on EQA programs so that proficiency in cfDNA diagnostic testing can be determined and potential sources of error identified and addressed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31487000What 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.