[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 34.204.173.45. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Views 329
Citations 0
Comment & Response
October 2018

Regarding the Congruence Between 2 Circulating Tumor DNA Sequencing Assays

Author Affiliations
  • 1University of Maryland Greenebaum Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore
  • 2International Society of Liquid Biopsy, Granada, Spain
  • 3Memorial Cancer Institute, Pembroke Pines, Florida
  • 4Robert H. Lurie Cancer Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(10):1430. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.2320

To the Editor The blood-diagnostics field has evolved in the past decade, realizing the ability to detect driver mutations and resistance clones, allowing the application of targeted therapies and the concept of molecular selection and therapeutic monitoring using “liquid biopsy.”1,2 Recently in JAMA Oncology, Torga and Pienta3 reported divergent results between 40 patient-paired blood samples in advanced prostate cancer using 2 commercially available cell-free circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) tests (Guardant360 and PlasmaSelect). The results indicated low congruence between the 2 tests, and the authors concluded that the data were concerning with regard to standard clinical use of ctDNA.

×