Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31978562›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD2020

Preanalytical Variables for the Genomic Assessment of the Cellular and Acellular Fractions of the Liquid Biopsy in a Cohort of Breast Cancer Patients.

Stephanie N Shishido, Lisa Welter, Mariam Rodriguez-Lee, Anand Kolatkar, Liya Xu, Carmen Ruiz, Anna S Gerdtsson, Sara Restrepo-Vassalli, Anders Carlsson, Joe Larsen and 7 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

17 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Stephanie N ShishidoDepartment of Biological Sciences, Michelson Center for Convergent Bioscience, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Lisa WelterDepartment of Biological Sciences, Michelson Center for Convergent Bioscience, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Mariam Rodriguez-LeeDepartment of Biological Sciences, Michelson Center for Convergent Bioscience, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Anand KolatkarDepartment of Biological Sciences, Michelson Center for Convergent Bioscience, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Liya XuDepartment of Biological Sciences, Michelson Center for Convergent Bioscience, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Carmen RuizDepartment of Biological Sciences, Michelson Center for Convergent Bioscience, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Anna S GerdtssonDepartment of Biological Sciences, Michelson Center for Convergent Bioscience, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Sara Restrepo-VassalliDepartment of Biological Sciences, Michelson Center for Convergent Bioscience, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Anders CarlssonDepartment of Biological Sciences, Michelson Center for Convergent Bioscience, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Joe LarsenDepartment of Biological Sciences, Michelson Center for Convergent Bioscience, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Emily J GreenspanCenter for Strategic Scientific Initiatives, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
E Shelley HwangDepartment of Surgery, Duke University Hospital, Durham, North Carolina.
Kathryn R WaitmanHematology & Oncology, Billings Clinic, Billings, Montana.
Jorge NievaNorris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Kelly BethelDepartment of Pathology, Scripps Clinic Medical Group, La Jolla, California.
James HicksDepartment of Biological Sciences, Michelson Center for Convergent Bioscience, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Peter KuhnDepartment of Biological Sciences, Michelson Center for Convergent Bioscience, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. Electronic address: pkuhn@usc.edu.
University of Southern California · USBillings Clinic · USDivision of Program Coordination Planning and Strategic Initiatives · USDuke University Hospital · USScripps Clinic Medical Group · US

Funding

USC/NORRIS COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CENTER (CORE) SUPPORTP30CA014089 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI Saul Priceman · 1985 to 2026
$181.4M
CCR NIH HHS HHSN261200800001CNCI NIH HHS HHSN261200800001ENCI NIH HHS P30 CA014089
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Liquid biopsy allows assessment of multiple analytes, providing temporal information with potential for improving understanding of cancer evolution and clinical management of patients. Although liquid biopsies are intensely investigated for prediction and response monitoring, preanalytic variables are of primary concern for clinical implementation, including categories of collection method and sample storage. Herein, an integrated high-density single-cell assay workflow for morphometric and genomic analysis of the liquid biopsy is used to characterize the effects of preanalytical variation and reproducibility of data from a breast cancer cohort. Following prior work quantifying performance of commonly used blood collection tubes, this study completes the analysis of four time points to assay (24, 48, 72, and 96 hours), demonstrating precision up to 48 hours after collection for assay sensitivity, highly reproducible rare cell enumeration, morphometric characterization, and high efficiency and capacity for single-cell genomic analysis. For the cell-free analysis, both freezing and use of fresh plasma produced similar quality and quantity of cell-free DNA for sequencing. The genomic analysis (copy number variation and single-nucleotide variation) described herein is broadly applicable to liquid biopsy platforms capable of isolating cell-free and cell-based DNA. Morphometric parameters and genomic signatures of individual circulating tumor cells were evaluated in relation to patient clinical response, providing preliminary evidence of clinical validity as a potential biomarker aiding clinical diagnostics or monitoring progression.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorGenomicsLiquid BiopsyBreast NeoplasmsCell-Free Nucleic AcidsDNA Copy Number VariationsFemaleHumansNeoplastic Cells, CirculatingPolymorphism, Single NucleotideReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificitySingle-Cell AnalysisWorkflowBiomarkers, TumorCell-Free Nucleic Acids

Identifiers

PMID31978562
PMCPMC7103765
OpenAlexW3001195005

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.