ArticleJTO clinical and research reports2021
A Pan-Canadian Validation Study for the Detection of
Article in JTO clinical and research reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- New insights into the biology and development of lung cancer in never smokers-implications for early detection and treatment.Journal of translational medicine · 2023Review
- Can Liquid Biopsy Based on ctDNA/cfDNA Replace Tissue Biopsy for the Precision Treatment of EGFR-Mutated NSCLC?Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionGenotyping circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is a promising noninvasive clinical tool to identify the
methodsIn phase 1, commercial reference standards were distributed to participating clinical laboratories, to use their existing platforms for mutation detection. Baseline performance characteristics were established using known and blinded engineered plasma samples spiked with predetermined concentrations of T790M, L858R, and exon 19 deletion variants. In phase II, peripheral blood collected from local patients with known
resultsAll laboratories in phase 1 detected the variants at 0.5 % and 5.0 % allele frequencies, with no false positives. In phase 2, the concordance with the reference laboratory for detection of both the primary and resistance mutation was high, with next-generation sequencing and droplet digital polymerase chain reaction exhibiting the best overall concordance. Data also suggested that the ability to detect mutations at clinically relevant limits of detection is generally not platform-specific, but rather impacted by laboratory-specific practices.
conclusionsDiscrepancies among sending laboratories using the same assay suggest that laboratory-specific practices may impact performance. In addition, a negative or inconclusive ctDNA test should be followed by tumor testing when possible.
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.