ArticleJournal of translational medicine2026
Molecular residual disease assessment in colorectal and bladder cancer by somatic structural variant analysis of cell-free DNA whole-genome sequencing data.
Article in Journal of translational medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhole-genome sequencing (WGS)-based methods for circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) detection typically rely on tumor-informed identification of somatic single nucleotide variants (SNVs). Somatic structural variants (SVs) are another type of cancer-specific genomic alteration, which owing to their larger genomic footprint and unique breakpoint junctions, are easier to distinguish from sequencing noise than SNVs. They are, however, rarely used for ctDNA detection because of (1) artifacts from WGS procedures that SV callers may falsely interpret as genuine SVs. This makes it difficult to establish high-confidence SV catalogos from short-read tumor WGS and can cause false-positive ctDNA detections. (2) Lack of robust strategies to quantify SV-supporting reads in plasma WGS. To address these barriers and enable integration of SV biomarkers into WGS-based ctDNA detection, we present a bioinformatic framework for algorithmic curation of somatic SV calls from fresh-frozen and formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumors, coupled with a novel approach for sensitive, accurate mapping and quantification of SV breakpoint-supporting reads in plasma WGS.
methodsTumor, normal and plasma WGS data from 144 patients with stage III colorectal cancer was used to establish the bioinformatic framework. This included ~30x WGS data from 1564 serially collected plasma samples. The framework was validated using tumor/normal/plasma WGS data from 32 patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. SV-based ctDNA detection was benchmarked against previously published SNV-based ctDNA results for the same samples.
resultsAfter curation of SV calls and quantification in plasma WGS, our SV-based approach enabled robust ctDNA detection with overall specificity exceeding 99% in plasma samples. Furthermore, we observed strong concordance (Pearson’s r > 0.93, p < 2.2 × 10− 16) between ctDNA-positive samples identified by our SV-based method and previous SNV-based analyses, validating the reliability of our approach. Finally, we demonstrated application of the method in an independent bladder cancer cohort, highlighting its generalizability and potential clinical use.
conclusionsWe provide a bioinformatic framework that establishes somatic SVs as ultra-specific biomarkers for WGS-based, tumor-informed ctDNA detection. The approach delivers specific detection even when the SV catalogos are established from FFPE samples. The SV framework can stand alone or enhance SNV-based analysis pipelines.
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.