ArticleVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2026
Laboratory practices for next-generation sequencing-based circulating tumor DNA analysis: insights from a comprehensive survey in China.
Article in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Since large efforts have been done in recent years to promote the standardization of next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis, the current status of its laboratory practices in clinical settings has become a topic worthy of inquiry. To address this, we conducted a comprehensive survey on the clinical laboratory practices of NGS-based ctDNA analysis. Between May and June 2024, an online questionnaire consisting of 62 questions was distributed to laboratories that had previously participated in the proficiency testing schemes for NGS-based ctDNA analysis in China. Information on the laboratory characteristics, detailed analytical workflows, and quality assurance measures were collected. Out of 137 initial responses, 106 laboratories (77.4%) reported performing NGS-based ctDNA analysis for clinical purposes. While there was considerable variability in methodologies and workflows among these laboratories, 96.2% (102/106) of laboratories adhered to standardized pre-analytical workflows and more than 84.9% (90/106) implemented diverse quality assurance approaches to maintain testing quality. Nevertheless, critical gaps in laboratory practices were still identified, including a lack of specific criteria for sample collection timing and sample rejection, inadequate filtration measures, absence of orthogonal confirmations, incomplete validation plans, insufficient quality control metrics, and infrequent internal quality control assessments. The data revealed both strengths and critical gaps in the currently clinical laboratory practices of NGS-based ctDNA analysis in China. Albeit former efforts, future care must still be taken in establishing standardized workflows, implementing robust validation, and enforcing robust quality control measures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40560377What 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.