The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Harmonizing Cell-Free DNA Collection and Processing Practices through Evidence-Based Guidance
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) is rapidly transitioning from discovery research to an important tool in clinical decision making. However, the lack of harmonization of preanalytic practices across institutions may compromise the reproducibility of cfDNA-derived data and hamper advancements in cfDNA testing in the clinic. Differences in cellular genomic contamination, cfDNA yield, integrity, and fragment length have been attributed to different collection tube types and anticoagulants, processing delays and temperatures, tube agitation, centrifugation protocols and speeds, plasma storage duration and temperature, the number of freeze-thaw events, and cfDNA extraction and quantification methods, all of which can also ultimately impact subsequent downstream analysis. Thus, there is a pressing need for widely applicable standards tailored for cfDNA analysis that include all preanalytic steps from blood draw to analysis. The NCI's Biorepositories and Biospecimen Research Branch has developed cfDNA-specific guidelines that are based upon published evidence and have been vetted by a panel of internationally recognized experts in the field. The guidelines include optimal procedures as well as acceptable alternatives to facilitate the generation of evidence-based protocols by individual laboratories and institutions. The aim of the document, which is entitled "Biospecimen Evidence-based Best Practices for Cell-free DNA: Biospecimen Collection and Processing," is to improve the accuracy of cfDNA analysis in both basic research and the clinic by improving and harmonizing practices across institutions.
Overview
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
Verification
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?
Blood collection tube type, sample volume, time from venipuncture to plasma separation, centrifugation protocol, storage temperature, freeze-thaw exposure, and cfDNA extraction method can influence cfDNA yield, leukocyte DNA contamination, fragment size, tumor fraction, and downstream assay performance.
“Blood collection tube type, sample volume, time from venipuncture to plasma separation, centrifugation protocol, storage temperature, freeze–thaw exposure, and cfDNA extraction method can all influence cfDNA yield, leukocyte DNA contamination, fragment size, tumor fraction, and downstream assay performance [ 5 , 11 , 12 , 40 ].”
From Signals Alongside Scans: A Genomics-Guided Framework for Liquid Biopsy in Bone and Soft-Tissue Sarcomas (2026) · cites this paper as [40]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 49 · Cited by 140
Metadata
- Authors
- Greytak, S. R., Engel, K. B., Parpart-Li, S., Murtaza, M., Bronkhorst, A. J., Pertile, M. D., & Moore, H. M.
- Affiliations
- 1Kelly Government Solutions, Rockville, Maryland.
- 2Preferred Solutions Group, Washington D.C.
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
- Translational Genomics Research Institute (US)
- Technical University of Munich (DE)
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services (AU)
- National Cancer Institute (US)
- Corresponding author
- Moore, Helen M.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Clinical Cancer Research
- Published
- 2020-07-01
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 13
- Pages
- 3104-3109
- ISSN
- 1078-0432 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-3265
- PMC
- PMC7334102
- OpenAlex
- W3009205724
- Cited by
- 140
- References
- 49
- Citations by year
- 2026: 26 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 4
- FWCI
- 5.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- europepmc.org
- Locations
- Clinical Cancer Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- HHS | NIH | National Cancer Institute
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Medical Laboratory Technology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
- Keywords
- cell-free DNA, pre-analytical variables, biospecimen collection, sample collection tubes, anticoagulants, plasma storage, centrifugation protocols, freeze-thaw cycles, best practices guidelines
- MeSH terms
- Cell-Free Nucleic Acids, Liquid Biopsy, Animals, Humans, Neoplasms, Research, Specimen Handling, Biomarkers, Tumor, Guidelines as Topic, Evidence-Based Practice
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