2018
DOI: 10.1200/jco.2018.36.15_suppl.12021
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Development of a comprehensive cell-free DNA (cfDNA) assay for early detection of multiple tumor types: The Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas (CCGA) study.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
59
0
2

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 55 publications
(62 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
1
59
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…A wide range of blood-based biomarker candidates, including DNA, RNA, protein, methylation, lipid, and metabolites, have been reported in the literature, with some showing notable potential for breast cancer detection [10]. Some key studies are the CancerSEEK [18] and GRAIL's Circulating Cell-Free Genome Atlas (CCGA) [19,20] projects that have employed circulating DNAs as cancer markers. Although these circulating DNA-based blood tests were able to identify multiple cancers, their sensitivities in discriminating breast cancer from healthy or non-cancer controls remained poor (i.e., 33% for CancerSEEK [18] and <60% for CCGA [20]).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…A wide range of blood-based biomarker candidates, including DNA, RNA, protein, methylation, lipid, and metabolites, have been reported in the literature, with some showing notable potential for breast cancer detection [10]. Some key studies are the CancerSEEK [18] and GRAIL's Circulating Cell-Free Genome Atlas (CCGA) [19,20] projects that have employed circulating DNAs as cancer markers. Although these circulating DNA-based blood tests were able to identify multiple cancers, their sensitivities in discriminating breast cancer from healthy or non-cancer controls remained poor (i.e., 33% for CancerSEEK [18] and <60% for CCGA [20]).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although these circulating DNA-based blood tests were able to identify multiple cancers, their sensitivities in discriminating breast cancer from healthy or non-cancer controls remained poor (i.e., 33% for CancerSEEK [18] and <60% for CCGA [20]). Besides, these tests were less sensitive in detecting breast cancer at early stages as compared to late stages [19,20]. Other potential biomarkers for differentiating breast cancers and benign breast lesions include protein biomarkers such as the combination of epithelial membrane antigen and cytokeratin-1 (EMA and CK1; AUC of 0.9010), and developmental endothelial locus-1 (Del-1; AUC of 0.9200) [21,22].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, because samples were obtained retrospectively, breaks in the chain of custody may have led to sample and labelling errors, which would impede the ability of an ML method to adequately learn. Additionally, the presence of CNVs in a small number of control samples (Supplemental Figure 2) has been previously observed in other cohorts and may be due to malignant or benign causes [5,14,37]; further follow up was not possible in this cohort. Another limitation of our study is that TF was estimated using copy-number inference from moderate-coverage whole-genome sequencing, which has a limit of detection of 3% for TF [28]; by contrast, targeted mutation detection would allow more sensitive characterization of TF.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 62%
“…These limitations are particularly important in early-stage cancer when the tumor is small and the shedding of DNA into the blood may be minimal. Indeed, many previous cfDNA studies have had stage distributions meaningfully different from those seen in screening populations [14][15][16].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…However, these alterations come with low specificity for classification of pediatric solid tumors according to their histopathological diagnosis 35 . In addition, there is a high interest to develop a screening test based on cfDNA methylation in adult oncology 36 . Due to the rarity of cancer in children, we…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%