2020
DOI: 10.1038/s41374-020-0459-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reliability of liquid biopsy analysis: an inter-laboratory comparison of circulating tumor DNA extraction and sequencing with different platforms

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
22
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
1
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…DNA was quantified with the Qubit dsDNA High Sensitivity Kit (ThermoFisher). Enrichment of the characteristic mononucleosomal fragment peak (160–200 bp) and absence of contaminating high molecular weight genomic DNA [ 28 , 29 ] were verified using the Bioanalyzer 2100 High Sensitivity DNA Kit (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…DNA was quantified with the Qubit dsDNA High Sensitivity Kit (ThermoFisher). Enrichment of the characteristic mononucleosomal fragment peak (160–200 bp) and absence of contaminating high molecular weight genomic DNA [ 28 , 29 ] were verified using the Bioanalyzer 2100 High Sensitivity DNA Kit (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The current study focusses on how the potential clinical utility of liquid rebiopsies in ALK + NSCLC depends on the anatomical pattern of treatment failure, and on the prognostic information that their results additionally provide about the subsequent disease course and patient survival. We present this article in accordance with the STROBE reporting checklist (available at http:// dx.doi.org/10.21037/tlcr- [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Conversely, most oligoprogressive ALK + NSCLC patients with negative liquid biopsies appear to have a more indolent course without need for immediate change of systemic treatment.Conflicts of Interest:All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi. org/10.21037/tlcr-[21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]. PC reports grants and personal fees from Novartis, grants and personal fees from Roche, grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Pfizer, grants and personal fees from Takeda, personal fees from Chugai, personal fees from Boehringer, outside the submitted work; SD reports personal fees from Roche, outside the submitted work; DK reports personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from BMS, personal fees from AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work; AV reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work; MR reports personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from BMS, personal fees from Boehringer, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Merck, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Samsung, outside the submitted work; AS reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Bayer, personal fees from BMS, personal fees from Illumina, personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Seattle Genomics, outside the submitted work; MT reports grants from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from BMS, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Boehringer, personal fees from Celgene, personal fees from Takeda, personal fees from AbbVie, outside the submitted work; HS reports grants and personal fees from Roche, outside the submitted work.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The methodologies depend on the purpose of ctDNA [44][45][46][47][48] : (1) Quantitative PCR (qPCR): This procedure is used for the evaluation of total cfDNA amount and/or cfDNA integrity. To be sure to identify properly ctDNA coming from EC (and not from others tumors or pathologies), it is necessary to refer to specific mutations present in the tumor.…”
Section: Methodologies For Detection Of Ctdnamentioning
confidence: 99%