ArticleThe oncologist2021
Validation of a Circulating Tumor DNA-Based Next-Generation Sequencing Assay in a Cohort of Patients with Solid tumors: A Proposed Solution for Decentralized Plasma Testing.
Article in The oncologist, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- ctDNA response after pembrolizumab in non-small cell lung cancer: phase 2 adaptive trial results.Nature medicine · 2023Trial
- Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treatment Response Evaluation by Ultra-Deep Sequencing of Cell-Free DNA and Matched White Blood Cells.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2023Trial
- Tumor-naïve ctDNA detection with deep learning-enhanced error suppression for sensitive mutation calling.Genome medicine · 2026Article
- Liquid biopsies for detection, characterization, and interception of therapy resistance in thoracic malignancies.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Role of circulating tumor DNA methylation in gastric cancer initiation and progression: A comprehensive review.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Review
- Recent developments in immunotherapy for gastrointestinal tract cancers.Journal of hematology & oncology · 2024Review
- Baseline ctDNA gene alterations as a biomarker of survival after panitumumab and chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer.Nature medicine · 2024Article
- A unified DNA- and RNA-based NGS strategy for the analysis of multiple types of variants at the dual nucleic acid level in solid tumors.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2023Article
- Cell-free DNA approaches for cancer early detection and interception.Journal for immunotherapy of cancer · 2023Review
- Translating the evolving molecular landscape of tumors to biomarkers of response for cancer immunotherapy.Science translational medicine · 2022Review
- Novel Markers for Liquid Biopsies in Cancer Management: Circulating Platelets and Extracellular Vesicles.Molecular cancer therapeutics · 2022Review
- Review
- Tumor-immune microenvironment revealed by Imaging Mass Cytometry in a metastatic sarcomatoid urothelial carcinoma with a prolonged response to pembrolizumab.Cold Spring Harbor molecular case studies · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
37 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCharacterization of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has been integrated into clinical practice. Although labs have standardized validation procedures to develop single locus tests, the efficacy of on-site plasma-based next-generation sequencing (NGS) assays still needs to be proved. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this retrospective study, we profiled DNA from matched tissue and plasma samples from 75 patients with cancer. We applied an NGS test that detects clinically relevant alterations in 33 genes and microsatellite instability (MSI) to analyze plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA).
resultsThe concordance between alterations detected in both tissue and plasma samples was higher in patients with metastatic disease. The NGS test detected 77% of sequence alterations, amplifications, and fusions that were found in metastatic samples compared with 45% of those alterations found in the primary tumor samples (p = .00005). There was 87% agreement on MSI status between the NGS test and tumor tissue results. In three patients, MSI-high ctDNA correlated with response to immunotherapy. In addition, the NGS test revealed an FGFR2 amplification that was not detected in tumor tissue from a patient with metastatic gastric cancer, emphasizing the importance of profiling plasma samples in patients with advanced cancer.
conclusionOur validation experience of a plasma-based NGS assay advances current knowledge about translating cfDNA testing into clinical practice and supports the application of plasma assays in the management of oncology patients with metastatic disease. With an in-house method that minimizes the need for invasive procedures, on-site cfDNA testing supplements tissue biopsy to guide precision therapy and is entitled to become a routine practice. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study proposes a solution for decentralized liquid biopsy testing based on validation of a next-generation sequencing (NGS) test that detects four classes of genomic alterations in blood: sequence mutations (single nucleotide substitutions or insertions and deletions), fusions, amplifications, and microsatellite instability (MSI). Although there are reference labs that perform single-site comprehensive liquid biopsy testing, the targeted assay this study validated can be established locally in any lab with capacity to offer clinical molecular pathology assays. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first report that validates evaluating an on-site plasma-based NGS test that detects the MSI status along with common sequence alterations encountered in solid tumors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.