ArticlePloS one2025
Analytical validation and sequencing coverage studies suggest that performance of a liquid biopsy assay is tumor agnostic (DNA-is-DNA).
Article in PloS one, 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.
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
Per regulatory and standard requirements (e.g., Clinical & Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines, United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) correspondence), analytical validation (AV) for each companion diagnostic (CDx) biomarker should be repeated using a clinical sample set for each cancer type listed as an indication in labelling for a CDx. Using data from AV studies and Foundation Medicine (FMI)'s clinical database, we evaluated the hypothesis that analytical performance of the FoundationOne®Liquid CDx (F1LCDx) assay is not impacted by cancer type and that large sets of clinical, tumor-specific samples might not be necessary for analytical validation of specific CDx biomarkers. We retrospectively evaluated all liquid biopsy samples from F1LCDx assay AV studies that were executed between April 2019 and November 2021 and clinical samples processed by F1LCDx between September 2020 and October 2021. For the samples from AV studies, we evaluated the precision and concordance performance by F1LCDx between tumor types; and for the clinical samples, we performed analyses comparing the distribution of coverage between tumor types. A total of 31,247 F1LCDx clinical samples and 579 samples from F1LCDx AV studies with a total of 335 disease ontologies (DOs) were included in this study. For precision: the median absolute pairwise difference of mean reproducibility between any pairs of two tumor types is 0.94% [0.01%-2.63%] and the median absolute pairwise difference of mean repeatability between any pairs of two tumor types is 0.91% [0.03%-2.98%]. For concordance: the median absolute [Formula: see text] between any pairs of two tumor types is 1.39% [0.1%-4.1%] and the median absolute [Formula: see text] between any pairs of two tumor types is 0.05% [0%-1%]. For coverage, a similar distribution was observed between tumor types using F1LCDx clinical samples. Herein, the results based on the extensive cohort of 31,826 liquid biopsy samples sequenced by the F1LCDx assay demonstrated that both analytical assessment of precision and concordance and coverage are comparable among tumor types (i.e., deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is DNA). The tumor type that circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) was derived from is therefore not a vital consideration for AV studies for F1LCDx assay.
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.