4.7 Article

Guidelines for the Preanalytical Conditions for Analyzing Circulating Cell-Free DNA

Journal

CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
Volume 65, Issue 5, Pages 623-633

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2018.298323

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. INSERM
  2. SIRIC Montpellier Grant INCa-DGOS-Inserm 6045, France
  3. European ERA-Net TRANSCAN (THRuST)
  4. European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program [755333]
  5. DNAcirc grant INCA-DGOS 4537
  6. H2020 Societal Challenges Programme [755333] Funding Source: H2020 Societal Challenges Programme

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) isolated from blood has been identified as a potential biomarker in numerous fields, and has been the object of intensive research over the past decade, although its original discovery dates back 60 years. While it is already used routinely in commercial and clinical practice in oncology and prenatal testing, other potential applications have emerged, including for diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, organ transplantation, autoimmune diseases, sepsis, trauma, and sport management. As with the discovery and development of any biomarker, preanalytical requirements and documentation are as important as analytical requirements. Except for the case of noninvasive prenatal testing and prenatal diagnosis, the implementation of cfDNA in a clinical setting remains limited because of the lack of standardization of cfDNA analysis. In particular, only a few attempts have been made to collect and pool scientific data on the relevant preanalytical factors, and no standard operating procedure has yet been set. For this report, we have performed a thorough and systematic search via MEDLINE (R) for relevant preanalytical variables and patient factors. These form the basis of the guidelines we propose for analyzing nuclear cfDNA. (c) 2019 American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available