Cited by 140Cancer Genomics and DiagnosticsClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics

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 access

Published 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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-19-3015

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.

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?

  • 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 ].”

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.
Venue
Clinical Cancer Research
Published
2020-07-01
Volume
26
Issue
13
Pages
3104-3109
ISSN
  • 1078-0432 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-3265
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
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