ArticleBMC cancer2025
Validation and clinical evaluation of a comprehensive circulating tumor DNA assay for genomic profiling in solid tumors.
Article in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSince 2023, the Department of Pathology at Vienna General Hospital has implemented comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) using the AmoyDx
methodsAnalytical validation was performed using commercial reference standards with variant allele frequencies between 0% and 5%. Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) was extracted from routine plasma samples and analyzed according to the manufacturer's protocol and optimized filtering thresholds. A total of 559 samples from 501 patients were included in the biomarker yield analysis. Clinical utility was assessed in a subset of 126 patients. Biomarker annotation was retrospectively performed using the Cancer Genome Interpreter. Clinical data were retrospectively obtained via electronic medical record review.
resultsThe assay demonstrated 98% analytical sensitivity for small variants at 0.5% variant allele frequency (VAF), with a limit of detection (95%) at 0.37% VAF and a limit of blank of 0.06% VAF, while demonstrating lower sensitivity for fusions (66% at 0.5% VAF). Mutations corresponding to actionable biomarkers (ASCO Tier 1/A) were identified in 28.6% of samples. CtDNA findings contributed to a documented change in therapy in 11.7% of patients, either by establishing first-line therapy in 6.2% or change in management based on detected actionable alterations in 5.5%. Only 15% of results were explicitly acknowledged in tumor board documentation. Clinical requisitions lacked legible diagnoses in 16% of cases, and an explicit clinical question in 75%.
conclusionThe assay demonstrates high analytical validity for small variants at VAF > 0.5% and yields actionable biomarkers in a substantial proportion of cases. However, inconsistent clinical documentation and poor integration into care workflows limit the assessment of its clinical impact. We recommend that the implementation of ctDNA-based CGP in public health settings be accompanied by standardized requisition protocols and mandatory clinical data capture.
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.