Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41975767›Full record

ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2026

Harmonising ctDNA Measurement in Haematological Malignancies: Traceability, Commutability and Reporting.

Sapha Shibeeb

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Sapha ShibeebSchool of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University, P.O. Box 71, Bundoora, Melbourne, VIC 3083, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) assays are increasingly applied in haematological malignancies for non-invasive genotyping, quantitative response assessment, measurable residual disease (MRD) detection, and relapse surveillance, often complementing bone marrow-based testing and, in selected scenarios, potentially reducing its frequency. Yet, translating ctDNA results into comparable clinical decisions across laboratories, platforms, and time remains challenging because ctDNA measurements are influenced by the definition of the measurand (for example, variant allele fraction versus mutant molecules per mL), pre-analytical variables, end-to-end workflow losses, and lineage-specific confounders such as clonal haematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP), therapy-related clonal haematopoiesis, and compartmental disease (marrow, plasma, cerebrospinal fluid, extramedullary sites). This review proposes a harmonisation framework for haematological ctDNA based on three linked concepts-metrological traceability, which connects reported values to reference systems with stated uncertainty, commutability, which ensures that reference materials behave like patient specimens across diverse workflows and fit-for-purpose reference materials that support calibration, and quality control, external quality assessment, and cut-off setting for intended uses such as early molecular response in large B-cell lymphoma, molecular MRD in acute myeloid leukaemia, and deep response monitoring in multiple myeloma. This framework is accompanied by harmonised CHIP-aware reporting rules for settings without matched cellular DNA and practical change-control/bridging strategies to preserve clinical decision thresholds when platforms or bioinformatic pipelines evolve.

Indexed as

circulating tumour DNAcommutabilityhaematological malignanciesmetrological traceabilityreference materials

Identifiers

PMID41975767
PMCPMC13072925

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.