ArticleThe Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD2025
FoundationOne CDx and FoundationOne Heme Detect Epstein-Barr Virus with High Sensitivity and Specificity.
Article in The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD, 2025. 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.
- The Role of Molecular Testing in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma of Unknown Primary.Head and neck pathology · 2026Review
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
Abstract
Accurate detection of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) in tumors is essential for refining diagnosis and guiding management of EBV-associated cancers. This validation study evaluated the performance of the FoundationOne CDx (F1CDx) and FoundationOne Heme (F1H) next-generation sequencing assays for detecting EBV compared with the reference standard EBV-encoded RNA (EBER) in situ hybridization (ISH). A total of 413 samples of gastric carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma (predominantly nasopharyngeal carcinoma), and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma was assessed. The assays demonstrated a sensitivity of 94.0%, specificity of 99.1%, and accuracy of 98.3% with an area under the curve of 0.97 for EBV detection, showing high concordance with EBER ISH. Precision was 95.5%, and reproducibility across multiple runs was strong (CV = 4.7%). Dilution experiments demonstrated a linear relationship between EBV viral reads per million and the degree of cell culture dilution (Pearson's R > 0.99, P < 0.001), supporting assay linearity over a broad dynamic range. Characteristic mutational and cytogenetic profiles, including losses at 9p21 and gains at 11q13, were observed in EBV-positive samples, supporting the clinical utility of the method. These results indicate that F1CDx and F1H provide a reliable, in-parallel approach for detecting EBV along with somatic genomic alterations in a single assay. This method offers a promising alternative to conventional ISH, especially for identifying EBV in tumors without initial clinical suspicion, potentially streamlining diagnostic workflows.
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.