Evidence-Based Liquid Biopsy Knowledge
Disclaimer:

This content was compiled with AI assistance and is for educational and informational purposes only. The information presented here should not replace professional medical advice. Always consult with qualified healthcare providers for medical advice and treatment decisions.

Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL)

Circulating Tumor DNA Testing in Clinical Management

Clinical Overview

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) represents the most common aggressive lymphoma in adults, accounting for approximately 30-40% of non-Hodgkin lymphomas. While frontline R-CHOP chemoimmunotherapy achieves cure in 60-70% of patients, the remaining 30-40% experience relapse or refractory disease. Minimal residual disease (MRD) detection using circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has demonstrated prognostic value in risk stratification and treatment monitoring.

The heterogeneous nature of DLBCL includes multiple molecular subtypes with distinct clinical behaviors. Cell-of-origin classification divides DLBCL into germinal center B-cell (GCB) and activated B-cell (ABC) subtypes, with additional recognition of double-hit and triple-hit lymphomas harboring MYC rearrangements. These molecular features influence treatment selection and prognosis.

Recent advances in ctDNA technology enable non-invasive monitoring of disease burden through peripheral blood sampling. This approach offers advantages for serial assessment during and after therapy, with documented ability to detect molecular relapse before clinical or radiographic progression.

ctDNA Testing Methodology

LIQOMICS Testing Solutions for Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma

LymphoVista offers tumor-informed ctDNA testing for Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma using either baseline tissue or baseline plasma samples for mutation profiling, followed by longitudinal MRD monitoring.

Key Features:

  • Works with baseline tissue biopsy or baseline blood draw for initial profiling
  • Tracks patient-specific mutations for high-sensitivity MRD detection
  • Serial monitoring optimized for lymphoma biology
  • Non-invasive blood-based surveillance
  • Comprehensive genotyping and mutational profiling

Learn More About LymphoVista →

MRD Detection and Clinical Outcomes

Prognostic Value of ctDNA-MRD Testing

Minimal residual disease (MRD) detection through ctDNA analysis provides powerful prognostic stratification in DLBCL patients following first-line therapy. Multiple large-scale studies have demonstrated that ctDNA-MRD status at end of treatment is one of the strongest predictors of long-term outcomes, outperforming traditional imaging-based assessments in several key metrics.

Key Clinical Findings

End-of-Treatment MRD Status and 2-Year Outcomes (HOVON-902):

  • MRD-Negative Patients: 88% progression-free survival at 2 years - the vast majority achieve durable remission
  • MRD-Positive Patients: Only 28% progression-free survival at 2 years - the majority experience early relapse
  • Hazard Ratio: 9.7 (95% CI 4.2-22.3) - nearly 10-fold increased risk of progression in MRD-positive patients

Comprehensive Clinical Outcomes Data

Parameter Result Clinical Interpretation
2-year PFS (MRD-negative) 88% 88 of 100 patients without detectable ctDNA remain relapse-free for 2 years
2-year PFS (MRD-positive) 28% 72 of 100 patients with detectable ctDNA experience relapse within 2 years
Hazard Ratio for Progression 9.7 (95% CI 4.2-22.3) MRD-positive patients have nearly 10-fold higher risk of relapse
Specificity in PET-negative 90.8% When PET and ctDNA both negative, >90% probability of no residual disease

These data demonstrate that ctDNA-MRD testing provides exceptional risk stratification, allowing clinicians to identify patients at high risk for relapse who may benefit from treatment intensification or consolidation strategies, while sparing low-risk patients from unnecessary interventions.

Extended Follow-Up: 3-Year Prospective Validation (HOVON-902)

The full prospective validation study from the HOVON-902 national trial was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in February 2026 (Wang et al., JCO 2026;44(5):400-409). This landmark publication confirmed and extended the prognostic power of ctDNA-MRD with longer follow-up in 134 uniformly treated patients from over 50 centers in the Netherlands and Belgium:

3-Year Outcomes (Wang et al., JCO 2026)

  • 3-year PFS: 85% (MRD-negative) vs 17% (MRD-positive); HR 9.8 (95% CI 5.1-19; p=9.63x10-12)
  • 3-year OS: 92% (MRD-negative) vs 43% (MRD-positive); HR 7.7 (95% CI 3.4-17.4; p=1.27x10-6)
  • Positive predictive value for 2-year PFS: ctDNA-MRD 68% vs PET-CT 56% (p ≤ .001)
  • Negative predictive value: ctDNA-MRD 89% vs PET-CT 88% (comparable, p = .71)
  • MRD independence: Remained significant in multivariate analysis controlling for IPI and PET-CT findings

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2025)

A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of 53 studies evaluating ctDNA in DLBCL was published in npj Precision Oncology (2025), confirming the prognostic value of ctDNA across multiple timepoints:

  • Baseline ctDNA: High concentration associated with increased progression risk (HR 2.50, 95% CI 2.15-2.9)
  • End-of-treatment ctDNA positivity: Strongest prognostic association of any timepoint (HR 13.69, 95% CI 8.37-22.39)
  • EOT PET-negative/ctDNA-positive: Highly specific (90.8%) for subsequent relapse
  • EOT PET-positive/ctDNA-negative: Significantly decreased relapse risk (negative likelihood ratio 0.15, 95% CI 0.06-0.3)

Early and Interim ctDNA Response

Beyond end-of-treatment assessment, ctDNA kinetics during therapy provide early prognostic information that complements interim PET imaging:

  • Early molecular response (EMR): A ≥2-log ctDNA decline after cycle 1 independently stratifies outcomes beyond IPI and interim PET
  • Major molecular response (MMR): A ≥2.5-log ctDNA decline after cycle 2 further refines risk prediction
  • Combined assessment: Integrating ctDNA kinetics with interim PET improves risk classification with wider separation of survival curves compared to either modality alone

Complementary Role with PET-CT Imaging

ctDNA-MRD testing is not intended to replace PET-CT imaging, but rather to complement it by providing molecular confirmation of disease status. PET-CT evaluates anatomical and metabolic abnormalities, while ctDNA directly measures tumor-derived genetic material in the bloodstream. The combination of both modalities offers superior prognostic information compared to either alone:

  • PET-negative + ctDNA-negative: Highest confidence in complete remission (>90% specificity)
  • PET-positive + ctDNA-negative: Likely false-positive PET finding (inflammation, infection, scarring)
  • PET-negative + ctDNA-positive: Molecular evidence of residual disease despite imaging negativity
  • PET-positive + ctDNA-positive: Confirmed active disease requiring intervention

The False-Positive PET Problem

Challenge of PET-CT Interpretation After Therapy

PET-CT scans frequently show abnormal metabolic findings that are not actual tumor remnants, creating significant clinical uncertainty after completion of first-line therapy:

Common Causes of False-Positive PET Findings:

  • Inflammation: Immune activation and inflammatory responses to therapy can persist for weeks to months
  • Infections: Opportunistic infections during immunosuppressive therapy show PET avidity
  • Post-Treatment Changes: Scarring, fibrosis, and tissue remodeling after chemotherapy or radiation
  • Brown Fat Uptake: Metabolically active brown adipose tissue in neck, chest, and abdomen
  • Benign Reactive Nodes: Lymph nodes responding to vaccination or infection

Clinical Consequences Before ctDNA-MRD Testing:

  • Invasive Biopsies: Surgical or needle biopsies required to confirm or exclude active lymphoma
  • Patient Anxiety: Weeks of uncertainty waiting for biopsy results and pathology interpretation
  • Procedure Risks: Complications from biopsies including bleeding, infection, pneumothorax
  • Treatment Delays: Diagnostic workup can delay necessary therapy in truly positive cases
  • Overtreatment: Some patients received unnecessary therapy escalation based on false-positive imaging

ctDNA Offers Gentle and Precise Clarification

ctDNA testing provides a non-invasive alternative through a simple blood sample, enabling molecular confirmation of disease status without the burden and risks of invasive biopsies. When PET shows concerning findings but ctDNA is negative, clinicians can confidently reassure patients and avoid unnecessary procedures.

The Decisive Finding: PET-positive, ctDNA-negative

Clinical Validation of the Most Important Scenario

The most clinically actionable finding from recent studies is the outcome of patients who are PET-positive but ctDNA-negative at end of first-line therapy. This scenario represents the core justification for incorporating ctDNA-MRD testing into clinical practice.

Key Evidence:

  • Patients who are PET-positive but ctDNA-negative have clinical outcomes equivalent to patients who are completely PET-negative
  • 2-year progression-free survival in PET+/ctDNA- group matches PET-/ctDNA- group (~88%)
  • This confirms that ctDNA testing can definitively identify false-positive PET findings
  • The ctDNA test provides molecular confirmation that residual PET activity represents inflammation, infection, or scarring rather than active lymphoma

Clinical Implications:

  • No Biopsy Required: Patients can avoid invasive tissue sampling for PET-positive findings
  • No Therapy Escalation: Standard surveillance rather than treatment intensification
  • Follow PET-Negative Pathway: These patients can confidently be managed with routine surveillance protocols
  • Reduced Patient Burden: Elimination of anxiety, procedures, and potential complications from biopsies
  • Resource Optimization: Healthcare system benefits from reduced unnecessary interventions

Clinical Consequence

For PET-positive findings after first-line therapy, ctDNA-MRD status now determines whether aggressive diagnostic and therapeutic intervention is needed. A negative ctDNA result provides the confidence to spare patients from biopsy and continue routine surveillance, fundamentally changing the management approach.

NCCN Guidelines 1.2025: ctDNA-MRD Now Recommended

Landmark Guidelines Update - December 2024

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Version 1.2025 Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: B-Cell Lymphomas, published in December 2024, represents a landmark advancement: ctDNA-MRD testing receives its first official recommendation for DLBCL clinical management.

About NCCN Guidelines

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network comprises 33 leading cancer centers in the United States, including Memorial Sloan Kettering, MD Anderson, Mayo Clinic, Dana-Farber, and other internationally recognized institutions. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines are:

  • Global Gold Standard: Recognized worldwide as the authoritative reference for cancer treatment
  • Evidence-Based: Continuously updated based on rigorous review of published clinical data
  • Multidisciplinary Consensus: Developed by expert panels representing all relevant specialties
  • Clinically Actionable: Provide specific recommendations that directly guide treatment decisions
  • Quality Benchmarks: Used by payers, regulators, and healthcare systems to establish standards of care

The Specific NCCN 1.2025 Recommendation

NCCN Recommendation (Version 1.2025)

"For PET-positive findings after completion of first-line therapy, ctDNA-MRD testing is recommended as an alternative to tissue biopsy for confirmation of disease status."

Assay Specification: The NCCN guidelines specify that only ctDNA-MRD assessments with an assay limit of detection of less than one part per million (<1 ppm) should be used for this purpose.

Clinical Application:

  • When end-of-treatment PET-CT shows residual metabolic activity (Deauville Score 4-5)
  • ctDNA-MRD testing can be performed instead of proceeding directly to biopsy
  • If ctDNA is negative, the patient can follow the PET-negative surveillance pathway
  • If ctDNA is positive, confirmation of active disease and consideration of biopsy and/or treatment escalation

The Evidence Supporting This Recommendation

The NCCN 1.2025 recommendation is based on multiple convergent lines of evidence demonstrating that ctDNA-MRD testing provides superior prognostic discrimination compared to PET-CT alone:

Key Study: Wang S et al., J Clin Oncol 2025

  • Large prospective cohort validating ctDNA-MRD in DLBCL after first-line therapy
  • Demonstrated that PET-positive/ctDNA-negative patients have outcomes equivalent to PET-negative patients
  • Hazard ratio for progression in MRD-positive vs MRD-negative: 9.7 (95% CI 4.2-22.3)
  • 2-year PFS: 88% (MRD-negative) vs 28% (MRD-positive); 2-year OS: 97% vs 50%

Kurtz et al. Studies (2018, 2019, 2021):

  • Pioneering work establishing technical feasibility and clinical validity of phased variant ctDNA detection
  • Demonstrated early molecular relapse detection months before clinical/radiographic progression
  • Validated dynamic risk profiling through serial ctDNA monitoring

Clinical Benefit: Avoiding Unnecessary Biopsies and Treatments

The NCCN recommendation fundamentally changes clinical decision-making by providing an evidence-based pathway to spare patients from invasive procedures when ctDNA provides molecular reassurance:

Patient-Centered Benefits

  • Eliminate Biopsy Burden: No surgical procedures, sedation, or tissue sampling for PET+/ctDNA- patients
  • Rapid Results: Blood test turnaround of 7-14 days vs weeks for biopsy scheduling and pathology
  • Reduce Anxiety: Molecular confirmation provides definitive reassurance
  • Avoid Overtreatment: Prevents unnecessary therapy escalation in false-positive PET cases
  • Serial Monitoring: Non-invasive blood draws enable frequent surveillance impossible with tissue biopsies
  • Cost Effectiveness: Blood test more economical than surgical procedures and hospitalizations

Clinical Decision Algorithm

End of First-Line Therapy Assessment

The following algorithm integrates PET-CT imaging and ctDNA-MRD testing based on NCCN 1.2025 recommendations:

Post-First-Line Therapy Evaluation

All patients undergo end-of-treatment PET-CT

Pathway 1: PET-Negative (Deauville Score 1-3)

→ ctDNA-MRD testing: Optional but recommended for enhanced risk stratification

  • If ctDNA-negative: Standard surveillance (imaging every 3-6 months)
  • If ctDNA-positive (rare): Heightened surveillance, consider early intervention

Expected outcome: >90% probability of durable remission if both PET and ctDNA negative

Pathway 2: PET-Positive (Deauville Score 4-5)

→ ctDNA-MRD testing: RECOMMENDED per NCCN 1.2025

If ctDNA-NEGATIVE:

  • Interpretation: PET-positive finding likely represents false-positive (inflammation, infection, scarring)
  • Management: Follow PET-negative surveillance pathway
  • Biopsy: Not required
  • Treatment: No escalation needed
  • Expected outcome: 88% progression-free survival at 2 years (equivalent to PET-negative patients)

If ctDNA-POSITIVE:

  • Interpretation: Molecular confirmation of active residual disease
  • Management: Consider biopsy for histologic confirmation and potential transformation assessment
  • Treatment options: Treatment intensification, consolidation therapy, clinical trial enrollment
  • Expected outcome: High risk of progression (72% relapse within 2 years without intervention)

Key Clinical Principle: For PET-positive findings after first-line therapy, ctDNA-MRD status is the decisive factor determining whether aggressive intervention (biopsy, treatment escalation) is warranted versus routine surveillance.

Surveillance Strategy Based on Risk Stratification

Risk Category Definition Surveillance Intensity ctDNA Monitoring
Low Risk PET-negative, ctDNA-negative Standard surveillance: imaging every 3-6 months for 2 years, then annually Optional serial ctDNA every 3-6 months
Low Risk (PET+) PET-positive, ctDNA-negative Follow PET-negative pathway (per NCCN 1.2025) Repeat ctDNA in 4-6 weeks, then every 3 months
High Risk ctDNA-positive (regardless of PET) Intensive surveillance: imaging every 2-3 months; consider intervention Serial ctDNA every 4-8 weeks to monitor disease kinetics

POLARIX Trial: ctDNA Biomarker Analysis

The POLARIX randomized phase III trial comparing polatuzumab vedotin-based Pola-R-CHP with standard R-CHOP in previously untreated DLBCL included a prespecified exploratory ctDNA biomarker analysis, providing important validation of ctDNA in a large controlled trial setting.

POLARIX ctDNA Findings

Key Results:

  • Prognostic value: Detectable ctDNA after 1 cycle of Pola-R-CHP and at end of treatment was associated with poorer PFS and OS
  • ctDNA clearance: Clearance of ctDNA was prognostic for favorable clinical outcomes in both treatment arms
  • Genotyping concordance: The mutation landscape of ctDNA in DLBCL resembled that of tumor tissue, supporting plasma ctDNA as an alternative to tissue for genotyping
  • Molecular subtyping: Patients with molecular subtypes defined by whole exome sequencing or ctDNA had similar PFS outcomes, validating non-invasive subtype classification

ctDNA Monitoring in CAR-T Cell Therapy

ctDNA-based MRD monitoring is emerging as a critical tool for early prognostication following CD19-directed CAR-T cell therapy in relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma, with data available for both axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel).

Real-World CAR-T ctDNA Monitoring (2025)

Axicabtagene Ciloleucel (Axi-cel) ctDNA Kinetics:

  • In patients with durable remission (>12 months): ctDNA undetectable in 79% by Day 14, 83% by Day 28, 95% by Day 90, and 100% by Day 180
  • Detectable ctDNA emerged at or prior to clinical relapse in 94% of patients
  • Negative predictive value of undetectable ctDNA: 100% at Day 28 and 95.6% at Day 90 for concurrent PET-detectable disease

Lisocabtagene Maraleucel (Liso-cel) - TRANSFORM Study:

  • Significantly more patients achieved undetectable ctDNA with liso-cel vs standard of care (62% vs 38%)
  • Undetectable ctDNA associated with longer event-free survival at all assessed timepoints
  • ctDNA clearance kinetics differ from axi-cel: Day 90 was the earliest significant prognostic timepoint for liso-cel

Clinical Implications: ctDNA monitoring provides earlier and more specific detection of treatment failure than imaging alone following CAR-T therapy, enabling timely intervention.

ctDNA with Bispecific Antibodies

ctDNA monitoring is also being evaluated in the context of bispecific antibody therapy for relapsed/refractory DLBCL, extending its utility beyond chemoimmunotherapy and CAR-T.

Odronextamab ctDNA Analysis (ELM-2 Study)

  • Agent: Odronextamab (CD20xCD3 bispecific antibody)
  • Finding: Undetectable ctDNA at cycle 4 day 15 (C4D15) was associated with prolonged PFS
  • Combined assessment: Combining undetectable ctDNA with PET-CT complete response at C4D15 extended PFS prediction in both FL and DLBCL cohorts
  • Implication: ctDNA-MRD may form the basis of response-guided treatment paradigms for bispecific antibody therapy

Interventional Trials Using ctDNA

Building on the strong prognostic evidence, several interventional trials are now prospectively using ctDNA to guide treatment decisions in DLBCL, marking the transition from prognostic biomarker to predictive/decisional tool.

SHORTEN-ctDNA Trial (NCT06693830)

  • Design: ctDNA-guided therapy de-escalation in newly diagnosed DLBCL
  • Population: 32 patients receiving R-CHOP or Pola-R-CHP
  • Intervention: Patients with iPET4 complete response AND undetectable ctDNA at cycle 4 day 1 receive rituximab alone for cycles 5-6 (omitting chemotherapy)
  • Technology: PhasED-Seq (real-time ctDNA assessment during treatment)
  • Rationale: Patients achieving early ctDNA clearance may safely receive fewer chemotherapy cycles while maintaining outcomes
  • Status: Actively enrolling (launched December 2024)

Genotyping and Clinical Utility

Actionable Mutations in DLBCL

CD79B Mutations and Targeted Therapy

Clinical Relevance:

  • Frequency: 20-30% of DLBCL cases, enriched in ABC subtype
  • Associated with polatuzumab vedotin response
  • Treatment regimen: Pola-R-CHP as frontline therapy
  • Detection via NGS panels from tissue or ctDNA
  • Improved progression-free survival compared to standard R-CHOP in CD79B-mutated cases

High-Risk Genetic Alterations

TP53 Mutations:

  • Frequency: 20-25% of DLBCL
  • Associated with inferior outcomes with standard therapy
  • May warrant consideration of intensified regimens or clinical trials
  • Serial ctDNA monitoring can track TP53 clonal evolution

MYC/BCL2/BCL6 Rearrangements (Double/Triple-Hit Lymphoma):

  • Frequency: 5-10% of aggressive B-cell lymphomas
  • Median overall survival <2 years with R-CHOP
  • Requires intensive regimens (DA-EPOCH-R preferred over R-CHOP)
  • FISH remains standard for detection; ctDNA can identify breakpoints in subset

Additional Clinically Relevant Mutations:

  • MYD88 L265P: ~30% of ABC-DLBCL; potential BTK inhibitor sensitivity
  • CREBBP: ~30% of GCB-DLBCL; associated with immune evasion mechanisms
  • KMT2D: ~30% of DLBCL; chromatin modifier dysfunction
  • EZH2: ~25% of GCB-DLBCL; target for EZH2 inhibitors under investigation

Liquid-Tissue Concordance

Mutation Detection Concordance:

  • Overall concordance: 79%
  • High allelic fraction mutations (>5%): 92% concordance
  • Low allelic fraction mutations (<1%): 61% concordance
  • Factors affecting concordance: tumor cellularity, sampling site, disease burden

These data support ctDNA use when tissue is inadequate or unavailable, with recognition that sensitivity depends on tumor burden and mutation characteristics.

References

  1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®): B-Cell Lymphomas. Version 1.2025. December 2024. Available at: NCCN.org.
  2. Wang S, Nijland M, Strobbe L, et al. Prospective validation of circulating tumor DNA measurable residual disease after first-line therapy in large B-cell lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2026;44(5):400-409. doi:10.1200/JCO-25-01712.
  3. Wang S, et al. Prospective validation of end of treatment ctDNA-MRD by PhasED-Seq in DLBCL patients from a national trial. J Clin Oncol. 2025;43(16_suppl):7000.
  4. Kurtz DM, et al. Enhanced detection of minimal residual disease by targeted sequencing of phased variants in circulating tumor DNA. Nat Biotechnol. 2021;39:1537-1547.
  5. Kurtz DM, et al. Dynamic risk profiling using serial tumor biomarkers for personalized outcome prediction. Cell. 2019;178:699-713.
  6. Roschewski M, et al. Circulating tumour DNA and CT monitoring in patients with untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a correlative biomarker study. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:541-549.
  7. Scherer F, et al. Distinct biological subtypes and patterns of genome evolution in lymphoma revealed by circulating tumor DNA. Sci Transl Med. 2016;8:364ra155.
  8. Kurtz DM, et al. Circulating tumor DNA measurements as early outcome predictors in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:2845-2853.
  9. Bobillo S, et al. Cell free circulating tumor DNA in cerebrospinal fluid detects and monitors central nervous system involvement of B-cell lymphomas. Haematologica. 2021;106:513-521.
  10. Esfahani MS, et al. Inferring gene expression from cell-free DNA fragmentation profiles. Nat Biotechnol. 2022;40:585-597.
  11. Sworder BJ, et al. Determinants of resistance to engineered T-cell therapies targeting CD19 in large B-cell lymphomas. Cancer Cell. 2023;41:210-225.
  12. Frank MJ, et al. Monitoring of circulating tumor DNA improves early relapse detection after axicabtagene ciloleucel infusion in large B-cell lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:3034-3043.
  13. Alig S, et al. Short diagnosis-to-treatment interval is associated with higher circulating tumor DNA levels in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:2605-2616.
  14. The prognostic and clinical utility of circulating tumor DNA in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. npj Precis Oncol. 2025. doi:10.1038/s41698-025-01174-3.
  15. POLARIX ctDNA biomarker analysis. Plasma circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) as an alternative to tissue DNA for genotyping of DLBCL: results from the POLARIX study. Blood. 2023;142(Supplement 1):169.
  16. Redefining post-CD19 CAR T-cell surveillance with ctDNA: real-world insights from post-axi-cel and liso-cel therapy. Blood. 2025.
  17. TRANSFORM Study ctDNA analysis. Circulating tumor DNA as an early outcome predictor in patients with second-line large B-cell lymphoma after lisocabtagene maraleucel versus standard of care. Blood. 2025.
  18. Early clearance of circulating tumor DNA and association with odronextamab response in relapsed/refractory FL and DLBCL. Blood Adv. 2025;9(23):6130.
  19. SHORTEN-ctDNA Trial. Sequencing-guided chemotherapy optimization using real-time evaluation in newly diagnosed DLBCL with circulating tumor DNA. J Clin Oncol. 2025;43(16_suppl):TPS7095. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT06693830.

Evidence summary current through April 2026 | Version 3.1

This educational resource incorporates the latest clinical trial data for ctDNA testing in DLBCL

Related Cancer Types

Explore ctDNA and liquid biopsy evidence for related cancer types:

Follicular Lymphoma Hodgkin Lymphoma Bladder Cancer