ArticleCancer research and treatment2024
Analytical and Clinical Validation of a Highly Sensitive NGS-Based ctDNA Assay with Real-World Concordance in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.
Article in Cancer research and treatment, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Biological basis and clinical translation prospects of circulating cell-free DNA in precision management of breast cancer (Review).Oncology letters · 2026Review
- Preoperative Circulating Tumor DNA Detection and Risk Stratification in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.JAMA surgery · 2026Article
- Circulating tumor DNA in lung cancer: a bibliometric analysis of studies published from 2001 to 2024.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Improvement of the sensitivity of circulating tumor DNA-based liquid biopsy: current approaches and future perspectives.Exploration of targeted anti-tumor therapy · 2025Review
- Next-generation sequencing impact on cancer care: applications, challenges, and future directions.Frontiers in genetics · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThere have been needs to improve the sensitivity of liquid biopsy. This report aims to report the analytical and clinical validation of a next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) assay. MATERIALS AND
methodsAnalytical validation was conducted in vitro by evaluating the limit of detection (LOD), precision, and specificity for various genomic aberrations. The real-world performance in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was assessed by comparing the results of AlphaLiquid100 to the tissue-based results.
resultsThe LODs with 30 ng input DNA were 0.11%, 0.11%, 0.06%, 0.21%, and 2.13 copies for detecting single nucleotide variants, insertions, deletions, fusions, and copy number alterations (CNA), respectively. Quantitatively, single nucleotide variants/insertions and deletions, fusions, and CNAs showed a good correlation (R2=0.91, 0.40, and 0.65; y=0.95, 1.06, and 1.19) to the manufacturer's values, and per-base specificities for all types of variants were near 100%. In real-world NSCLC (n=122), key actionable mutations in NSCLC were detected in 60.7% (74/122) with the ctDNA assay. Comparative analysis against the NGS-based tissue results for all key mutations showed positive percent agreement (PPA) of 85.3%. For individual genes, the PPA was as high as 95.7% for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations and 83.3% for ALK translocations. AlphaLiquid100 detected drug-sensitive EGFR mutation at a variant allele frequency as low as 0.02% and also identified an EGFR mutation in a case where tissue sample missed. Blood samples collected post-targeted therapies revealed additional acquired mutations.
conclusionThe AlphaLiquid100 ctDNA assay demonstrates robust analytical validity, offering clinically important information for NSCLC patients.
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.