Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31581267›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Analytical validation of the Target Selector ctDNA platform featuring single copy detection sensitivity for clinically actionable EGFR, BRAF, and KRAS mutations.

Jason C Poole, Shan-Fu Wu, Timothy T Lu, Cecile Rose T Vibat, Anh Pham, Errin Samuelsz, Manisha Patel, Jeffrey Chen, Tony Daher, Veena M Singh and 1 more

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A Novel Sensitive Technique to DetectCancer innovation · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Jason C PooleBiocept, Inc., San Diego, California, United States of America.
Shan-Fu WuBiocept, Inc., San Diego, California, United States of America.
Timothy T LuBiocept, Inc., San Diego, California, United States of America.
Cecile Rose T VibatBiocept, Inc., San Diego, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-2192-8732
Anh PhamBiocept, Inc., San Diego, California, United States of America.
Errin SamuelszBiocept, Inc., San Diego, California, United States of America.
Manisha PatelBiocept, Inc., San Diego, California, United States of America.
Jeffrey ChenBiocept, Inc., San Diego, California, United States of America.
Tony DaherBiocept, Inc., San Diego, California, United States of America.
Veena M SinghBiocept, Inc., San Diego, California, United States of America.
Lyle J ArnoldBiocept, Inc., San Diego, California, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPersonalized medicine requires accurate molecular profiling for targeted therapy decisions. Insufficient tissue yield or tumor heterogeneity frequently limits the correct tissue biomarker determination. As a noninvasive complement to traditional tissue biopsies, liquid biopsies detect and track cancer driver mutations from biofluids (e.g., blood, urine). Here we present the analytical validation of Target Selector™ ctDNA assays capable of single mutant DNA copy detection.

methodsThe Target Selector ctDNA assay applies a patented Switch-Blocker technology to suppress amplification of background (wild-type) WT alleles, while allowing specific amplification of very low frequency mutant alleles. In contrast to allele specific enrichment technologies like ddPCR, one Switch-Blocker inhibits amplification of a DNA target up to 15 bp in length (e.g., one Switch-Blocker covers all KRAS exon 2, codon 12 and 13 variants). Target enrichment is achieved through a quantitative PCR reaction; subsequent DNA sequencing confirms mutation identity. Analytical validation with cancer cell line DNA was conducted by three independent operators using five instruments across five days.

resultsA total of 3086 samples were tested on EGFR, BRAF and KRAS Target Selector ctDNA assays, with EGFR WT as a reference. All assays showed >99% analytical sensitivity and specificity. Single mutant copy detection is confirmed by experimental data and theoretical estimates. In the presence of 14000 WT DNA copies, limits of detection were: EGFR Del19, 0.01%; EGFR L858R, 0.02%; EGFR T790M, 0.01%; BRAF V600E, 0.01%; KRAS G12C, 0.02%. Inter- and intra-assay analyses showed r2>0.94, suggesting consistent performance among operational variables. Healthy donor samples (100 tests) showed clinical specificity at >99%. Finally, Target Selector clinical experience data of >2200 patient samples is consistent with published tissue mutation prevalence.

conclusionsHighly sensitive Target Selector ctDNA assays with single mutant copy detection and limit of detection at 0.02% or better enable accurate molecular profiling vital for disease management.

Indexed as

Gene DosageCirculating Tumor DNAErbB ReceptorsHumansLikelihood FunctionsLinear ModelsMutationMutation RateProto-Oncogene Proteins B-rafProto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)Reproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityTransition TemperatureCirculating Tumor DNAErbB ReceptorsKRAS protein, humanProto-Oncogene Proteins B-rafProto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)

Identifiers

PMID31581267
PMCPMC6776432

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.