Cited by 200Cancer Genomics and DiagnosticsPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsGenomics and Rare Diseases

Analytical Validation of a Hybrid Capture–Based Next-Generation Sequencing Clinical Assay for Genomic Profiling of Cell-Free Circulating Tumor DNA

Open access
Clark, Travis A., Chung, Jon H., Kennedy, Mark, Hughes, Jason D., Chennagiri, Niru, Lieber, Daniel S., Fendler, Bernard, Young, Lauren +27 more·2018·The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2018.05.004

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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”

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
Venue
The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-09
Volume
20
Issue
5
Pages
686-702
ISSN
1525-1578 (ISSN-L)
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
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