ArticleOncotarget2025
Analytical validation of a circulating tumor DNA assay using PhasED-Seq technology for detecting residual disease in B-cell malignancies.
Article in Oncotarget, 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.
- Circulating Tumor DNA Assessment of Disease Response in Large B-Cell Lymphoma: Lisocabtagene Maraleucel Versus Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation Standard Therapy.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2026Trial
- Frontline acalabrutinib, lenalidomide and rituximab for advanced stage follicular lymphoma with high tumor burden: phase II trial.Nature communications · 2025Trial
- Analysis of cell-free DNA in lymphomas: from sample collection to genotyping and minimal residual disease monitoring.Blood advances · 2026Review
- Assessment of Potential Sources of Variability on the Analytical Performance of a Circulating Tumor DNA Minimal Residual Disease Test for B-Cell Lymphomas.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2026Article
- Article
- Prospective Validation of Circulating Tumor DNA Measurable Residual Disease After First-Line Therapy in Large B-Cell Lymphoma.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2026Article
- Cell-Free DNA: Features and Attributes Shaping the Next Frontier in Liquid Biopsy.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCirculating tumor DNA (ctDNA) can be used as a tool to detect minimal residual disease (MRD) which can provide important prognostic information in diffuse large B-cell lymphomas (DLBCL). Here, we present an ultra-sensitive MRD assay reliant on Phased Variant Enrichment and Detection Sequencing (PhasED-Seq), which leverages phased variants to detect ctDNA.
methodsBlank plasma samples were used to assess assay specificity and a limiting dilution series with a DLBCL clinical-contrived sample was performed to assess assay sensitivity and precision. DLBCL plasma patient samples with MRD comparator assay results were tested with PhasED-Seq technology to assess assay accuracy.
resultsThe assay's false positive rate was 0.24% and the background error rate was 1.95E-08. The limit of detection at 95% detection rate with 120 ng of input DNA was 0.7 parts in 1,000,000 and precision was >96%. Positive percent agreement for the MRD assay was 90.62% (95% CI 74.98%, 98.02%) and negative percent agreement was 77.78% (95% CI 52.73, 93.59) using a single nucleotide variant-based method as reference.
conclusionsThe PhasED-Seq-based MRD assay has strong analytical and clinical performance in B-cell malignancies. Improved ctDNA detection methods such as this may improve patient outcomes through detection of residual disease or early relapse.
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.