Analytical Validation of a Hybrid Capture–Based Next-Generation Sequencing Clinical Assay for Genomic Profiling of Cell-Free Circulating Tumor DNA
Open accessAbstract
Genomic profiling of circulating tumor DNA derived from cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in blood can provide a noninvasive method for detecting genomic biomarkers to guide clinical decision making for cancer patients. We developed a hybrid capture-based next-generation sequencing assay for genomic profiling of circulating tumor DNA from blood (FoundationACT). High-sequencing coverage and molecular barcode-based error detection enabled accurate detection of genomic alterations, including short variants (base substitutions, short insertions/deletions) and genomic re-arrangements at low allele frequencies (AFs), and copy number amplifications. Analytical validation was performed on 2666 reference alterations. The assay achieved >99% overall sensitivity (95% CI, 99.1%-99.4%) for short variants at AF >0.5%, >95% sensitivity (95% CI, 94.2%-95.7%) for AF 0.25% to 0.5%, and 70% sensitivity (95% CI, 68.2%-71.5%) for AF 0.125% to 0.25%. No false positives were detected in 62 samples from healthy volunteers. Genomic alterations detected by FoundationACT demonstrated high concordance with orthogonal assays run on the same clinical cfDNA samples. In 860 routine clinical FoundationACT cases, genomic alterations were detected in cfDNA at comparable frequencies to tissue; for the subset of cases with temporally matched tissue and blood samples, 75% of genomic alterations and 83% of short variant mutations detected in tissue were also detected in cfDNA. On the basis of analytical validation results, FoundationACT has been approved for use in our Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-certified/College of American Pathologists-accredited/New York State-approved laboratory.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
After filtering out ~70% of TCGA patients with ≥1 alteration targeted by Guardant360 or FoundationOne Liquid, blood mbDNA models retained high discrimination for most remaining cancer types.
“We further used gene-lists from the Guardant360® and FoundationOne® Liquid assays45,46 to filter out TCGA patients with ≥1 targeted modification (~70%; Extended Data Figs. 8c–e) and found high discriminatory performances using the same ML approach for most remaining cancer types”
From RETRACTED ARTICLE: Microbiome analyses of blood and tissues suggest cancer diagnostic approach (2020) · cites this paper as [46]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 47 · Cited by 200
- Authors
- Clark, T. A., Chung, J. H., Kennedy, M., Hughes, J. D., Chennagiri, N., Lieber, D. S., Fendler, B., Young, L., Zhao, M., Coyne, M., Breese, V., Young, G., Donahue, A., Pavlick, D., Tsiros, A., Brennan, T., Zhong, S., Mughal, T., Bailey, M., He, J., Roels, S., Frampton, G. M., Spoerke, J. M., Gendreau, S., Lackner, M., Schleifman, E., Peters, E., Ross, J. S., Ali, S. M., Miller, V. A., Gregg, J. P., Stephens, P. J., Welsh, A., Otto, G. A., & Lipson, D.
- Affiliations
- Foundation Medicine (United States) (US)
- Genentech (US)
- University of California Davis Medical Center (US)
- Corresponding author
- Chung, Jon H.
- Lipson, Doron
- ORCID
- Venue
- The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-09
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 686-702
- ISSN
- 1525-1578 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6593250
- OpenAlex
- W2809244864
- Cited by
- 200
- References
- 47
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 8
- FWCI
- 7.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Molecular Diagnostics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Cancer Institute (P30CA093373)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
- Keywords
- circulating tumor DNA, cell-free DNA, liquid biopsy, hybrid capture sequencing, genomic profiling, analytical method validation, copy number amplification, genome rearrangement, DNA barcoding, assay sensitivity, tumor markers
- MeSH terms
- Circulating Tumor DNA, Gene Amplification, Humans, Gene Rearrangement, Gene Dosage, Genomics, INDEL Mutation, High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review