Insufficient yield of liquid biopsy analytes can lower sensitivity and result in false negatives
nRichDX delivers more cfDNA, cfRNA,
and circulating cell-free nucleic acids
Circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) is extremely rare, especially in early stages of cancer detection. Many competing sample prep systems were originally designed for applications that had plentiful targets in small samples (100 μl - 5 mL), not for the enrichment of cfDNA from liquid biopsies.
These methods are unable to achieve sufficient yields to detect the low allele frequency rates required for liquid biopsy testing, making them ineffective as an early detection diagnostic tool.
The simple math
Yield is a function of sample volume and
Accuracy of allele detection depends on a sufficiently high cfDNA input, and optimal input is a simple function of sample volume and recovery rate. Competing sample prep systems are lacking in both volume and recovery rate, and therefore don’t produce sufficient yield to ensure a high probability of allele detection.
Volume matters more than recovery rate
High efficiency alone is not enough. A larger volume of starting material directly impacts the success of downstream tests, making it possible to detect very early stage cancers by liquid biopsy
In order to achieve a 99.99% chance of cfDNA detection at an allele frequency of 0.05%, you'll need at least 83ng of cfDNA in your assay†. Even with 100% efficiency, you won't be able to get 83ng out of 4ml of sample. To increase cfDNA yield, you’ll need to increase both sample volume and extraction efficiency
This can be accomplished using nRichDX’s high-efficiency Revolution System, which permits single-cartridge processing of sample volumes from 1 mL to 20 mL.
Competitors have neither the ability to process large sample volumes nor the extraction efficiency to achieve the high cfDNA yields needed to ensure reliable detection.
† Nature Communications Volume 8, Article number: 15086 (2017)
nRichDX has the widest sample input range of any system, from 1 to 20 mL; several times more than from competing technologies (500 µl - 4 mL).
Compare to typical 40% - 50% recovery rate in competing systems.
* Customer evaluation study
1 mL — 20 mL
sample input volumes
Compare to typical sample volumes of 4 mL or less in competing systems.