PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 19, 2026Clinical Cancer Research0 citations

Abstract PS2-12-13: Breast Cancer Mutation Detection via Liquid Biopsy Using cfDNA from 50 mL Urine Samples

View Full Paper
NJN. JafariMSMayer SaidianJSJason Saenz

Key Points

  • The aim is to assess the performance of urine cfDNA in detecting breast cancer mutations using various preservatives.
  • Analyzed 50 mL urine samples from healthy donors containing breast cancer mutation standards.
  • Evaluated three preservatives: Streck, UAS, and Tris-EDTA, after 0 and 3 days of storage.
  • Measured cfDNA yield and integrity using Agilent assays and performed mutation detection using multiplex qPCR.
  • Consistent recovery of cfDNA across all conditions with a yield of 88% (Streck), 75% (UAS), 62% (TE).
  • All four mutations were reliably detected without significant changes in Ct values over time.
  • Inter-replicate variation was low, ensuring reliable mutation detection.

Abstract

Abstract Background: Urine cfDNA offers a promising, non-invasive option for molecular profiling in breast cancer. However, challenges with cfDNA stability, yield, and compatibility with preservatives have limited its widespread clinical adoption. This study evaluated the recovery and mutation detection performance of large-volume (50 mL) urine samples preserved with three common urine stabilizers and analyzed after storage for 0 and 3 days at room temperature. Methods: Pooled healthy donor urine was contrived with Anchor Molecular’s cfDNA reference standards containing four clinically actionable breast cancer mutations: IDH1 (R132H), PIK3CA (E545K), PTEN (R130G), and TP53 (R248Q). Three preservatives—Streck Urine preservative, UAS urine analyte stabilizer, and Tris-EDTA (TE) buffer pH (8.0)—were evaluated at time zero (T0) and after 3 days (T3) of room temperature storage. For each condition, three technical replicates were extracted from 50 mL urine samples using the nRichDX Revolution Max 50 cfDNA Kit. cfDNA yield and fragment integrity were measured using the Agilent cfDNA High Sensitivity ScreenTape assay. Mutation detection was performed using a multiplex qPCR assay targeting the four hotspot mutations. Results: cfDNA was successfully recovered in all conditions, with consistent detection of all four mutations across replicates, time points, and preservatives. The cfDNA fragment size profile was preserved from T0 to T3 across all preservatives, indicating minimal degradation during storage. Quantitative results showed that cfDNA yield varied by preservative, with average recovery of 88% (Streck), 75% (UAS), and 62% (TE) relative to input. Despite differences in yield, mutation detection was robust across all conditions, with no statistically significant shift in Ct values between T0 and T3 (p 0.05). Inter-replicate variation remained low (CV 5%), and all replicates consistently showed reliable detection of IDH1, PIK3CA, PTEN, and TP53 mutations. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that 50 mL urine inputs allow for consistent recovery and detection of clinically relevant breast cancer mutations across multiple preservative chemistries, even after 3 days at room temperature. Mutation standards from Anchor Molecular were reliably detected using qPCR in all conditions, and the nRichDX Revolution Max 50 cfDNA Kit was compatible with all three preservatives tested, showing variable but sufficient recovery to support downstream mutation detection. These findings support the feasibility of urine as a stable and scalable liquid biopsy sample type for breast cancer genotyping, longitudinal monitoring, and remote sample collection workflows. Citation Format: N. Jafari, Mayer Saidian, Jason Saenz, Carlos Hernandez, Daniel Cedeno, Cameron Van-Dieren, Y. Lu. Breast Cancer Mutation Detection via Liquid Biopsy Using cfDNA from 50 mL Urine Samples abstract. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2025; 2025 Dec 9-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2026;32(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS2-12-13.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Jafari et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6996a957ecb39a600b3f049ehttps://doi.org/10.1158/1557-3265.sabcs25-ps2-12-13
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Abstract 5039: Preanalytical workflow enabling cfDNA analysis from urine samples2024 · 1 citations
  2. 2Abstract 7838: Innovative biomarker discovery: A non-invasive, comprehensive tumor characterization approach with plasma and urine from breast cancer patients.2026
  3. 3Abstract 5042: Urine as a non-invasive proxy for plasma in prostate cancer-related liquid biopsy applications2024 · 2 citations
  4. 4Abstract 2430: Enhancing urine-based cfDNA detection for prostate cancer diagnosis through increased urine input volume2024
  5. 5Abstract 3677: Hybrid capture based sequencing from urinary cell free DNA from colorectal cancer patients2024