English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background Droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) is a widely used and sensitive application for circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) detection. As ctDNA is often found in low abundance, methods to separate low-signal readouts from noise are necessary. We aimed to characterize the ddPCR-generated noise and, informed by this, create a sensitive and specific ctDNA caller. Methods We built 2 novel complimentary ctDNA calling methods: dynamic limit of blank and concentration and assay-specific tumor load estimator (CASTLE). Both methods are informed by empirically established assay-specific noise profiles. Here, we characterized noise for 70 mutation-detecting ddPCR assays by applying each assay to 95 nonmutated samples. Using these profiles, the performance of the 2 new methods was assessed in a total of 9447 negative/positive reference samples and in 1311 real-life plasma samples from colorectal cancer patients. Lastly, performances were compared to 7 literature-established calling methods. Results For many assays, noise increased proportionally with the DNA input amount. Assays targeting transition base changes were more error-prone than transversion-targeting assays. Both our calling methods successfully accounted for the additional noise in transition assays and showed consistently high performance regardless of DNA input amount. Calling methods that were not noise-informed performed less well than noise-informed methods. CASTLE was the only calling method providing a statistical estimate of the noise-corrected mutation level and call certainty. Conclusions Accurate error modeling is necessary for sensitive and specific ctDNA detection by ddPCR. Accounting for DNA input amounts ensures specific detection regardless of the sample-specific DNA concentration. Our results demonstrate CASTLE as a powerful tool for ctDNA calling using ddPCR.

Error Characterization and Statistical Modeling Improves Circulating Tumor DNA Detection by Droplet Digital PCR