ArticleThe journal of liquid biopsy2026
A streamlined hybrid-capture and genome-wide multi-omic platform for highly sensitive ctDNA minimal residual disease monitoring.
Article in The journal of liquid biopsy, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis has revolutionized minimal residual disease (MRD) monitoring, but conventional tumor-informed amplicon-based sequencing (AMP) is limited by the narrow variant capacity and diversity. Hybrid capture-based sequencing (HYB) is more versatile and enables both tumor-informed and tumor-naïve liquid biopsy profiling. Methods: We analytically validated the performance of our novel HYB workflow and VarSURE variant calling pipeline, using reference standards (n = 6), plasma samples of cancer patients (n = 75) and healthy donors (n = 90). Genome-wide (GW) non-mutation features including copy number alterations, fragmentomics, and end-motif signatures were also evaluated to enhance ctDNA-MRD detection. Clinical performance was directly compared against our legacy AMP method (K-TRACK, Gene Solutions), using pre-treatment blood samples across multiple cancers (n = 290) and longitudinal cohorts of colorectal cancer (CRC, n = 64), and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC, n = 47). Results: Optimal parameters to maximize assay performance included single-stranded DNA ligation technology, cfDNA input ≥ 15 ng, post-UMI sequencing depth ≥ 2500X, and high number of tracked mutations. In the tumor-informed setting, the HYB workflow was modestly better than the AMP method in detection of pre-treatment ctDNA; addition of GW features was marginally beneficial except in lung cancer. Surveillance ctDNA determined by the HYB workflow had superior sensitivity to predict recurrence in both CRC (AMP: 90.0%, HYB: 100%) and HCC (AMP: 80.0%, HYB: 96.0%). In the tumor-naïve setting, the performance gap widened significantly, and the combined HYB and GW workflow showed the highest performance in baseline ctDNA detection across all cancers, and achieved sensitivity of 90.0% and 92.0% to detect recurrence in CRC and HCC respectively. Conclusions: The new methodology offers a streamlined and scalable solution for both comprehensive liquid biopsy profiling and longitudinal MRD tracking in routine clinical practice.
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.