ReviewBioFactors (Oxford, England)
Is There an Ace Up One's Sleeve in the Preanalytical Phase of the Circulating Tumor DNA Analysis?
Review in BioFactors (Oxford, England). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis has emerged as a pivotal minimally invasive tool for early detection, monitoring, and treatment stratification in cancer patients. However, the accuracy and reliability of ctDNA assays are profoundly influenced by preanalytical variables. This review discusses the impact of biological features (circadian rhythm, age, and sex), lifestyle factors (diet, smoking, and physical activity), as well as technical aspects such as hemolysis, leukocyte lysis, and delayed plasma separation on ctDNA integrity and concentration. Fluctuations in ctDNA levels driven by these factors highlight the need for clear guidelines regarding precollection timing, dietary restrictions, and sample processing. Furthermore, the adoption of harmonized protocols is essential to reduce variability and improve reproducibility across clinical and research settings.
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.