Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42307899›Full record

ArticleMolecular diagnosis & therapy2026

Standardized Analytical Verification of ctDNA ESR1 Mutation Testing in Metastatic HR+/HER2- Breast Cancer: A European Multicentre Study Using dPCR and NGS-Based Liquid Biopsy.

Federico Rojo, Valentina Guarneri, Nicola Fusco, Stefano Indraccolo, Isabelle Vanden Bempt, Elena Guerini Rocco, Ruth Sardinha, Isaac García-Murillas, Riccardo Adorisio, Andrea Boscolo Bragadin and 11 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular diagnosis & therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

21 authors.

Federico RojoPathology Department, IIS-Fundación Jiménez Díaz University Hospital-UAM-CIBERONC, Madrid, Spain. frojo@fdj.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9989-0290
Valentina GuarneriDepartment of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padova, Padua, Italy.
Nicola FuscoDivision of Pathology, European Institute of Oncology (IEO), IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Stefano IndraccoloDepartment of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padova, Padua, Italy.
Isabelle Vanden BemptDepartment of Human Genetics, UZ Leuven and KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Elena Guerini RoccoDivision of Pathology, European Institute of Oncology (IEO), IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Ruth SardinhaThe Ralph Lauren Centre for Breast Cancer Research, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Isaac García-MurillasThe Ralph Lauren Centre for Breast Cancer Research, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Riccardo AdorisioDivision of Pathology, European Institute of Oncology (IEO), IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Andrea Boscolo BragadinBasic and Translational Oncology Unit, Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV-IRCCS, Padua, Italy.
Nerea CarvajalPathology Department, IIS-Fundación Jiménez Díaz University Hospital-UAM-CIBERONC, Madrid, Spain.
Francesco PepeDepartment of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Sandra Pérez-BuiraPathology Department, IIS-Fundación Jiménez Díaz University Hospital-UAM-CIBERONC, Madrid, Spain.
Ivan Prieto-PotinPathology Department, IIS-Fundación Jiménez Díaz University Hospital-UAM-CIBERONC, Madrid, Spain.
Demi RendersDepartment of Human Genetics, UZ Leuven and KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Gianluca RussoDepartment of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Claudia ScimoneDepartment of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Claire SwiftThe Ralph Lauren Centre for Breast Cancer Research, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Konstantinos VenetisDivision of Pathology, European Institute of Oncology (IEO), IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Sandra ZazoPathology Department, IIS-Fundación Jiménez Díaz University Hospital-UAM-CIBERONC, Madrid, Spain.
Umberto MalapelleDepartment of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.

Funding

Instituto de Salud Carlos III PI24/00160Instituto de Salud Carlos III PT23/00114
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionActivating ESR1 mutations are a major mechanism of resistance to aromatase inhibitors in hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC). International guidelines, including those from ASCO, NCCN, and ESMO, recommend liquid biopsy as the preferred approach for ESR1 mutation testing at progression on endocrine therapy, with digital PCR (dPCR) and next-generation sequencing (NGS) as the preferred analytical platforms. Although elacestrant was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration together with Guardant360® Dx as its companion diagnostic, European regulatory frameworks allow the use of validated in-house assays for ESR1 testing, which are increasingly being implemented across clinical laboratories. To support the clinical implementation of ESR1 testing and improve analytical standardization in routine practice, we performed a European multicentre analytical verification study using dPCR- and NGS-based liquid biopsy workflows.

methodsSix referral institutions participated in this study. All laboratories verified dPCR workflows and four also verified NGS-based assays using standardized reference materials containing clinically relevant ESR1 mutations. Limit of detection (LoD) and limit of blank (LoB) were determined in each laboratory according to locally validated workflows following CLSI-based verification procedures. Analytical sensitivity and specificity were assessed across platforms, focusing on the two most frequently tested ESR1 hotspot mutations, p.Y537S and p.D538G. Total DNA input ranged from 10 to 30 ng per reaction for dPCR assays, while NGS input followed platform-specific requirements.

resultsLoD values ranged from 0.01% to 0.07% variant allele frequency (VAF) for dPCR assays and from 0.01% to 0.1% for NGS-based workflows, depending on platform characteristics and DNA input. Limit of blank values were low across laboratories, with minimal background signal detected in plasma samples from healthy donors. Comparable analytical performance was observed across different platforms when assays were performed under validated laboratory conditions. DISCUSSION: These results demonstrate that both dPCR and NGS-based liquid biopsy workflows can be successfully implemented for ESR1 mutation testing in routine clinical practice using locally validated assays. This multicentre verification study provides practical guidance on assay verification, DNA input requirements, and key analytical parameters required to ensure reliable ESR1 mutation detection across different European laboratories. Robust analytical verification of ESR1 testing may improve diagnostic reliability and support personalized treatment strategies for patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorBreast NeoplasmsCirculating Tumor DNAErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesEstrogen Receptor alphaHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingMutationDNA Mutational AnalysisEuropeFemaleHumansLiquid BiopsyNeoplasm MetastasisPolymerase Chain ReactionReceptors, ProgesteroneBiomarkers, TumorCirculating Tumor DNAERBB2 protein, humanErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesESR1 protein, humanEstrogen Receptor alphaReceptors, Progesterone

Identifiers

PMID42307899
PMCPMC13499828

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.