A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Results from an IFCC global survey on laboratory practices for the analysis of circulating tumor DNA. | LitMetric

Background: The clinical validity of ctDNA analysis as a diagnostic, prognostic and predictive biomarker has been demonstrated in many studies. The rapid spread of tests for the analysis of ctDNA raises questions regarding their standardization and quality assurance. The aim of this study was to provide a global overview of the test methods, laboratory procedures and quality assessment practices using ctDNA diagnostics.

Methods: The Molecular Diagnostics Committee of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC C-MD) conducted a survey among international laboratories performing ctDNA analysis. Questions on analytical techniques, test parameters, quality assurance and the reporting of findings were included.

Results: A total of 58 laboratories participated in the survey. The majority of the participating laboratories (87.7 %) performed testing for patient care. Most laboratories conducted their assays for lung cancer (71.9 %), followed by colorectal (52.6 %) and breast (40.4 %) cancer, and 55.4 % of the labs used ctDNA analysis for follow-up/monitoring of treatment-resistant alterations. The most frequent gene analysed was EGFR (75.8 %), followed by KRAS (65.5 %) and BRAF (56.9 %). Participation in external quality assessment programs was reported by only 45.6 % of laboratories.

Conclusions: The survey indicates that molecular diagnostic methods for the analysis of ctDNA are not standardized across countries and laboratories. Furthermore, it reveals a number of differences regarding sample preparation, processing and reporting test results. Our findings indicate that ctDNA testing is being conducted without sufficient attention to analytical performance between laboratories and highlights the need for standarisation of ctDNA analysis and reporting in patient care.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2023.117398DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

ctdna analysis
16
ctdna
8
analysis ctdna
8
quality assurance
8
quality assessment
8
patient care
8
analysis
7
laboratories
6
ifcc global
4
survey
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!