Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31134762›Full record

ArticleCancer medicine2019

Detection of mutations in circulating cell-free DNA in relation to disease stage in colorectal cancer.

Sandra Liebs, Ulrich Keilholz, Inge Kehler, Caroline Schweiger, Johannes Haybäck, Anika Nonnenmacher

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Detection ofOncology research · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Hypobaric hypoxia modulated structural characteristics of circulating cell-free DNA in high-altitude pulmonary edema.American journal of physiology. Lung cellular and molecular physiology · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. IMP1/IGF2BP1 in human colorectal cancer extracellular vesicles.American journal of physiology. Gastrointestinal and liver physiology · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Digital next-generation sequencing of cell-free DNA for pancreatic cancer.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Sandra LiebsGerman Cancer Consortium (DKTK), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7099-0340
Ulrich KeilholzCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Charité Comprehensive Cancer Center, Berlin, Germany.
Inge KehlerCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Charité Comprehensive Cancer Center, Berlin, Germany.
Caroline SchweigerInstitute of Pathology, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria.
Johannes HaybäckInstitute of Pathology, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria.
Anika NonnenmacherCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Charité Comprehensive Cancer Center, Berlin, Germany.
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin · DEMedical University of Graz · ATGerman Cancer Research Center · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Enthusiasm has emerged for the potential of liquid biopsies to provide easily accessible genetic biomarkers for early diagnosis and mutational cancer characterization. We here systematically investigated the suitability of circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) analysis for mutation detection in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients with respect to clinicopathological disease stage. Droplet Digital PCR (ddPCR) was performed to detect common point mutations in the KRAS and BRAF oncogenes in cfDNA from 65 patients and compared to mutations in tumor tissue. Stage of disease was classified according to UICC (Union for International Cancer Control) criteria. In tumor tissue, KRAS or BRAF mutations were present in 35 of 65 cases (44% UICC stage I, 50% stage II, 47% stage III, and 62% stage IV). Although cfDNA was detected in 100% of patients, ddPCR displayed the tumor tissue mutation in only 1 of 6 (17%) stage II patients, whereas 10 of 18 (56%) reported variants were verified in cfDNA samples of the stage IV cohort. No BRAF or KRAS mutation was detected in cfDNA from patients with wild-type tumor tissue. In one case of mutant stage II colon cancer (KRAS-G12C), the G12D variant was detected in cfDNA instead. Further workup revealed that circulating tumor-derived DNA and liver metastases originated from a synchronous KRAS-mutated cancer of the pancreas. Our results demonstrate that ddPCR-based analysis is highly specific and useful for mutation monitoring, but the sensitivity limits its usefulness for early cancer detection.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorCell-Free Nucleic AcidsCirculating Tumor DNADNA, NeoplasmMutationAdultAgedAged, 80 and overColorectal NeoplasmsDNA Mutational AnalysisEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansLiquid BiopsyMaleMiddle AgedBiomarkers, TumorBRAF protein, humanCell-Free Nucleic AcidsCirculating Tumor DNADNA, NeoplasmKRAS protein, humanProto-Oncogene Proteins B-rafProto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)BRAFcirculating cell-free DNAcolorectal cancerKRAS

Identifiers

PMID31134762
PMCPMC6639174
OpenAlexW2947411660

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.