Common analysis pitfalls in longitudinal ctDNA studies: lead time, sensitivity and immortal time bias

Circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) has emerged as one of the most promising biomarkers in oncology, with potential applications from detection of minimal residual disease (MRD) and diagnosis to prognosis, treatment guidance, and response monitoring. This personal view critically examines recurring methodological and statistical pitfalls in ctDNA studies with longitudinal measurements. We highlight important issues with lead time definition and demonstrate that performance metrics like sensitivity and specificity are inherently time-dependent. Furthermore, we show why immortal time bias arises when classifying patients incorrectly as always positive, based on becoming positive during surveillance in MRD related studies. With a combination of toy data examples, simulations, and re-analysis of published data we provide practice-oriented guidance to support the design, analysis, and reporting of ctDNA trials. This viewpoint paper aims to sensitise the community and raise awareness of pitfalls in longitudinal ctDNA analysis, rather than offer definitive solutions-more evidence is needed first.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
EBioMedicine
Published
2026-07-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2026.106407
Primary Topic
Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Common analysis pitfalls in longitudinal ctDNA studies: lead time, sensitivity and immortal time bias

Dominik Hlauschek, Michael Gnant, Ellen Heitzer, Gabriel Rinnerthaler et al.
EBioMedicine
Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
article

Common analysis pitfalls in longitudinal ctDNA studies: lead time, sensitivity and immortal time bias

Dominik Hlauschek, Michael Gnant, Ellen Heitzer, Gabriel Rinnerthaler, Marija Balić, Nadia Dandachi, Heather Parsons, Angela DeMichele
article en

Abstract

Circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) has emerged as one of the most promising biomarkers in oncology, with potential applications from detection of minimal residual disease (MRD) and diagnosis to prognosis, treatment guidance, and response monitoring. This personal view critically examines recurring methodological and statistical pitfalls in ctDNA studies with longitudinal measurements. We highlight important issues with lead time definition and demonstrate that performance metrics like sensitivity and specificity are inherently time-dependent. Furthermore, we show why immortal time bias arises when classifying patients incorrectly as always positive, based on becoming positive during surveillance in MRD related studies. With a combination of toy data examples, simulations, and re-analysis of published data we provide practice-oriented guidance to support the design, analysis, and reporting of ctDNA trials. This viewpoint paper aims to sensitise the community and raise awareness of pitfalls in longitudinal ctDNA analysis, rather than offer definitive solutions-more evidence is needed first.

EBioMedicineVol. 130
Medical University of Graz (AT), Fred Hutch Cancer Center (US), Comprehensive Cancer Center Vienna (AT), UPMC Hillman Cancer Center (US), Austrian Breast & Colorectal Cancer Study Group (AT), Medical University of Vienna (AT), University of Pennsylvania (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 12%
Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Common analysis pitfalls in longitudinal ctDNA studies: lead time, sensitivity and immortal time bias — Dominik Hlauschek, Michael Gnant, et al. · EBioMedicine (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS