ReviewClinical and translational science2025
Establishing a Common Lexicon for Circulating Tumor DNA Analysis and Molecular Residual Disease: Insights From the BLOODPAC Consortium.
Review in Clinical and translational science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Common analysis pitfalls in longitudinal ctDNA studies: lead time, sensitivity and immortal time bias.EBioMedicine · 2026Review
- Harmonizing definitions in liquid biopsy: A terminology framework by the international society of liquid biopsy.The journal of liquid biopsy · 2026Review
- Practical integration of ctDNA-defined minimal residual disease in gastrointestinal cancers: testing windows and evidence-aligned management frameworks.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Review
- Harmonising ctDNA Measurement in Haematological Malignancies: Traceability, Commutability and Reporting.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Circulating tumor DNA-guided early detection and minimal residual disease monitoring in pancreatic and biliary cancers: evidence, barriers, and opportunities.World journal of surgical oncology · 2026Review
- Generic Protocols for Analytical Validation of Tumor-Informed Circulating Tumor DNA Assays for Molecular Residual Disease: The Blood Profiling Atlas in Cancer's Molecular Residual Disease Analytical Validation Working Group Consensus Recommendation.JCO precision oncology · 2026Article
- BLOODPAC's collaborations with European Union liquid biopsy initiatives.The journal of liquid biopsy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of a liquid biopsy to assess molecular residual disease (MRD) of solid tumors holds significant promise for improving outcomes for patients with cancer. Liquid biopsies are a minimally invasive approach for the identification of circulating tumor biomarkers through a simple blood sample. Assays capable of detecting MRD through analysis of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) are rapidly evolving for clinical study applications and therapeutic interventions. To address these opportunities, BLOODPAC-a multi-disciplinary consortium representing stakeholders from public, industry, academia, and regulatory agencies-formulated a lexicon that provides a shared framework and clear definitions using liquid biopsies for solid tumor MRD with an emphasis on ctDNA detection. The terms in the lexicon are categorized under general MRD, ctDNA testing methodologies, reporting results, and acquisition timepoints, including examples of current and potential clinical use cases for MRD tests. The overall goal is to provide a unified language and approaches to solid tumor MRD to advance applications of these technologies, allow data aggregation to strengthen future evidence, and facilitate regulatory approvals, leading to the use of liquid biopsy as an early endpoint in clinical trials. We believe that a common set of terminology and methods for solid tumor MRD can improve understanding and appropriate use of testing, accelerate clinical development, and improve outcomes for cancer 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.