ArticleJCO precision oncology2026
Generic Protocols for Analytical Validation of Tumor-Informed Circulating Tumor DNA Assays for Molecular Residual Disease: The Blood Profiling Atlas in Cancer's Molecular Residual Disease Analytical Validation Working Group Consensus Recommendation.
Article in JCO precision oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early ctDNA Dynamics Predict Response to Mosperafenib in BRAF V600-Mutant Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.Cancer research communications · 2026Article
- Dynamic Precision Oncology for Real-Time Molecular Monitoring and Management in Urothelial Carcinoma.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Harmonising ctDNA Measurement in Haematological Malignancies: Traceability, Commutability and Reporting.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Liquid Biopsy in Non-Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Clinical Evidence and Future Directions.Cancers · 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
27 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The presence of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in patients indicates post-treatment molecular residual disease (MRD). Given the complexity of ctDNA-based MRD detection tests, consensus on analytical validation (AV) criteria is needed. To address this, the Blood Profiling Atlas in Cancer (BLOODPAC) Consortium's MRD AV Working Group evaluated existing protocols to develop standardized guidance for tumor-informed assays. Protocols pertaining to blood collection tube types, quantitative output, tissue processing, tumor or matched normal sequencing, software, and clinical validation were considered out of scope. After alignment on objectives and assumptions, study designs on the basis of best practices in the field, available assay validation guidance documents, and unique performance challenges for tumor-informed MRD assays were authored. Each protocol contains introduction, experimental design, statistical analysis, and an example data presentation per the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Devices and Radiological Health standard format. Biostatisticians were consulted to define minimal test requirements, sample size, and appropriate statistical analyses. The protocols were submitted to the FDA via the presubmission process for formal written feedback followed by a meeting. BLOODPAC's generic protocols for the AV of tumor-informed ctDNA assays for MRD are designed to provide test developers with a core baseline of standardized AV protocols such that methods described can be adapted and applied for any tumor-informed MRD assay irrespective of technology, panel design algorithm, or workflow component. These protocols aim to optimize test developers' presubmission reviews with the FDA, ensuring productive meetings while enabling reviewers to streamline feedback. As always, test developers are encouraged to communicate with FDA directly around their particular AV methods.
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.