Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40070025›Full record

ReviewClinical and translational science2025

Establishing a Common Lexicon for Circulating Tumor DNA Analysis and Molecular Residual Disease: Insights From the BLOODPAC Consortium.

Andrew G Hadd, Angela Silvestro, Brittany Avin McKelvey, Jonathan Baden, Christina Bormann Chung, Ben Brown, Fernando Cruz-Guilloty, James Godsey, Gregory Jones, Cheng-Ho Jimmy Lin and 9 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. 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 · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

19 authors.

Andrew G HaddNatera, Austin, Texas, USA.ORCID 0009-0000-6274-0555
Angela SilvestroGSK, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6379-7999
Brittany Avin McKelveyFriends of Cancer Research, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9239-7153
Jonathan BadenBristol Myers Squibb, Lawrence Township, New Jersey, USA.
Christina Bormann ChungGRAIL, Inc., Menlo Park, California, USA.ORCID 0009-0005-9586-0621
Ben BrownAdela Bio, Foster City, California, USA.
Fernando Cruz-GuillotyJohnson & Johnson, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7210-6603
James GodseyQuest Diagnostics, Secaucus, New Jersey, USA.
Gregory JonesNeoGenomics, Fort Myers, Florida, USA.
Cheng-Ho Jimmy LinFreenome, San Francisco, California, USA.
Dorys Lopez RamosBLOODPAC, Chicago, Illinois, USA.ORCID 0009-0008-1415-3135
Daniel NortonPersonalis, Fremont, California, USA.
Melanie R PalomaresExact Sciences, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Carol PenaMerck & co., Inc., Rahway, New Jersey, USA.
Thereasa RichGuardant Health, Palo Alto, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3023-6930
Angel RodriguezNatera, Austin, Texas, USA.
Mark StewartFriends of Cancer Research, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4847-0736
Diana Merino VegaAstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6173-6957
Lauren C LeimanBLOODPAC, Chicago, Illinois, USA.ORCID 0009-0002-4374-7246

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Biomarkers, TumorCirculating Tumor DNANeoplasm, ResidualNeoplasmsTerminology as TopicHumansLiquid BiopsyBiomarkers, TumorCirculating Tumor DNActDNAliquid biopsyMRD

Identifiers

PMID40070025
PMCPMC11897061

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.