Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31908397›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2019

Significance of postoperative follow-up of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer using circulating tumor DNA.

Lucie Benešová, Tereza Hálková, Renata Ptáčková, Anastasiya Semyakina, Kateřina Menclová, Jiří Pudil, Miroslav Ryska, Miroslav Levý, Jaromír Šimša, Filip Pazdírek and 3 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lucie BenešováCentre for Applied Genomics of Solid Tumors, Genomac Research Institute, Prague CZ 161 00, Czech Republic. lbenesova@genomac.cz.
Tereza HálkováCentre for Applied Genomics of Solid Tumors, Genomac Research Institute, Prague CZ 161 00, Czech Republic.
Renata PtáčkováCentre for Applied Genomics of Solid Tumors, Genomac Research Institute, Prague CZ 161 00, Czech Republic.
Anastasiya SemyakinaCentre for Applied Genomics of Solid Tumors, Genomac Research Institute, Prague CZ 161 00, Czech Republic.
Kateřina MenclováSurgery Department, 2 Faculty of Medicine of Charles University Prague and Military University Hospital, Prague CZ 169 02, Czech Republic.
Jiří PudilSurgery Department, 2 Faculty of Medicine of Charles University Prague and Military University Hospital, Prague CZ 169 02, Czech Republic.
Miroslav RyskaSurgery Department, 2 Faculty of Medicine of Charles University Prague and Military University Hospital, Prague CZ 169 02, Czech Republic.
Miroslav LevýSurgery Department, 1 Faculty of Medicine, Charles University Prague and Thomayer Hospital, Prague CZ 140 59, Czech Republic.
Jaromír ŠimšaSurgery Department, 1 Faculty of Medicine, Charles University Prague and Thomayer Hospital, Prague CZ 140 59, Czech Republic.
Filip PazdírekSurgery Department, 2 Faculty of Medicine of Charles University Prague and Motol University Hospital, Prague CZ 150 06, Czech Republic.
Jiří HochSurgery Department, 2 Faculty of Medicine of Charles University Prague and Motol University Hospital, Prague CZ 150 06, Czech Republic.
Milan BlahaInstitute of Biostatistics and Analyses of the Masaryk University, Brno CZ 625 00, Czech Republic.
Marek MinárikCentre for Applied Genomics of Solid Tumors, Genomac Research Institute, Prague CZ 161 00, Czech Republic.
Genomac · CZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOne of the most notable applications for circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) detection in peripheral blood of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is a long-term postoperative follow-up. Sometimes referred to as a "liquid (re)biopsy" it is a minimally invasive procedure and can be performed repeatedly at relatively short intervals (months or even weeks). The presence of the disease and the actual extent of the tumor burden (tumor mass) within the patient's body can be monitored. This is of particular importance, especially when evaluating radicality of surgical treatment as well as for early detection of disease progression or recurrence.

aimTo confirm the radicality of surgery using ctDNA and compare available methods for detection of recurrence in metastatic colorectal cancer.

methodsA total of 47 patients with detected ctDNA and indications for resection of mCRC were enrolled in the multicenter study involving three surgical centers. Standard postoperative follow-ups using imaging techniques and the determination of tumor markers were supplemented by ctDNA sampling. In addition to the baseline ctDNA testing prior to surgery, a postoperative observation was conducted by evaluating ctDNA presence up to a week after surgery and subsequently at approximately three-month intervals. The presence of ctDNA was correlated with radicality of surgical treatment and the actual clinical status of the patient.

resultsAmong the monitored patients, the R0 (curative) resection correlated with postoperative ctDNA negativity in 26 out of 28 cases of surgical procedures (26/28, 93%). In the remaining cases of R0 surgeries that displayed ctDNA, both patients were diagnosed with a recurrence of the disease after 6 months. In 7 patients who underwent an R1 resection, 4 ctDNA positivities (4/7, 57%) were detected after surgery and associated with the confirmation of early disease recurrence (after 3 to 7 months). All 15 patients (15/15, 100%) undergoing R2 resection remained constantly ctDNA positive during the entire follow-up period. In 22 cases of recurrence, ctDNA positivity was detected 22 times (22/22, 100%) compared to 16 positives (16/22, 73%) by imaging methods and 15 cases (15/22, 68%) of elevated tumor markers.

conclusionctDNA detection in patients with mCRC is a viable tool for early detection of disease recurrence as well as for confirmation of the radicality of surgical treatment.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiomarkers, TumorCirculating Tumor DNAColectomyColorectal NeoplasmsCzech RepublicDisease ProgressionEarly Detection of CancerFeasibility StudiesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLiquid BiopsyLiver NeoplasmsBiomarkers, TumorCirculating Tumor DNACirculating tumor DNAFollow-upMetastatic colorectal cancerPostoperativeRadicality of resectionRecurrence

Identifiers

PMID31908397
PMCPMC6938726
OpenAlexW2997643206

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.