ReviewThe Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD2025
Analytical Validation of Blood-Derived Tumor Mutation Burden (bTMB) Assays: A Joint Consensus Recommendation of the BLOODPAC bTMB Analytical Validation Working Group.
Review in The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Generic Protocols for the Analytical Validation of Next-Generation Sequencing-Based Circulating Tumor DNA Assays, Version 2.0.JCO precision oncology · 2026Article
- Circulating tumor DNA in neoadjuvant therapy for solid tumors.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Peripheral blood biomarkers in PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy: distinguishing predictive from prognostic biomarkers.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Liquid biopsies across the cancer care continuum.Nature medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Immunotherapies have changed the treatment paradigm for patients with advanced and metastatic solid tumors, with tumor mutation burden representing one approach to identify patients who may experience clinical benefit. Circulating tumor DNA-based approaches have been developed for comprehensive analyses of clinically actionable biomarkers; however, blood tumor mutation burden (bTMB) represents a novel, complex biomarker. Although the clinical utility of bTMB is an evolving area of active development and has not led to consistent conclusions across studies, robust analytical validation of the underlying test is important to ensure that technical and biological limitations do not confound clinical interpretation of these results. To this end, the BLOODPAC bTMB Analytical Validation Working Group sought to identify key technical and biological issues associated with analytical validation of bTMB tests, along with a conceptual framework to address these challenges. This publication provides guidance for device manufacturers to demonstrate analytical performance of their test with the understanding that these data would be accompanied by an appropriately designed clinical validation study to demonstrate performance within the intended use population. Therefore, the specific algorithm to determine the bTMB result, along with the associated cutoff, is out of scope of this Perspective. Device manufacturers should also ensure that appropriate pre-analytical variables are accounted for and methods are incorporated to differentiate tumor-specific alterations from those associated with germline polymorphisms or clonal hematopoiesis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.