Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31966080›Full record

ArticleOncology letters2020

Evaluation of circulating cell-free DNA as a molecular monitoring tool in patients with metastatic cancer.

Clemens Hufnagl, Michael Leisch, Lukas Weiss, Thomas Melchardt, Martin Moik, Daniela Asslaber, Geisberger Roland, Philipp Steininger, Thomas Meissnitzer, Daniel Neureiter and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Oncology letters, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
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

12 authors.

Clemens HufnaglInstitute of Pathology, Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, A-5020 Salzburg, Austria.
Michael LeischIIIrd Medical Department with Hematology and Medical Oncology, Oncologic Center, Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, A-5020 Salzburg, Austria.
Lukas WeissIIIrd Medical Department with Hematology and Medical Oncology, Oncologic Center, Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, A-5020 Salzburg, Austria.
Thomas MelchardtIIIrd Medical Department with Hematology and Medical Oncology, Oncologic Center, Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, A-5020 Salzburg, Austria.
Martin MoikIIIrd Medical Department with Hematology and Medical Oncology, Oncologic Center, Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, A-5020 Salzburg, Austria.
Daniela AsslaberIIIrd Medical Department with Hematology and Medical Oncology, Oncologic Center, Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, A-5020 Salzburg, Austria.
Geisberger RolandIIIrd Medical Department with Hematology and Medical Oncology, Oncologic Center, Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, A-5020 Salzburg, Austria.
Philipp SteiningerInstitute for Research and Development on Advanced Radiation Technologies, Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, A-5020 Salzburg, Austria.
Thomas MeissnitzerInstitute of Radiology, Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, A-5020 Salzburg, Austria.
Daniel NeureiterInstitute of Pathology, Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, A-5020 Salzburg, Austria.
Richard GreilIIIrd Medical Department with Hematology and Medical Oncology, Oncologic Center, Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, A-5020 Salzburg, Austria.
Alexander EgleIIIrd Medical Department with Hematology and Medical Oncology, Oncologic Center, Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, A-5020 Salzburg, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The clinical decisions made when treating patients with metastatic cancer require knowledge of the current tumor extent and response to therapy. For the majority of solid tumors, a response assessment, which is based on imaging, is used to guide these decisions. However, measuring serum protein biomarkers (i.e. tumor markers) may be of additional use. Furthermore, tumor markers exhibit variable specificity and sensitivity and cannot therefore be solely relied upon when making decisions regarding cancer treatment. Therefore, there is a clinical requirement for the identification of specific, sensitive and quantitative biomarkers. In recent years, circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) and mutation-specific circulating cell-free tumor DNA (cftDNA) have been identified as novel potential biomarkers. In the current study, cfDNA and cftDNA were compared using imaging-based staging and current tumor markers in 15 patients with metastatic colorectal, pancreatic or breast cancer. These patients were treated at the Third Medical Department of Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg (Austria). The results of the current study demonstrated a statistically significant correlation between the concentration changes of cfDNA and cftDNA and response to treatment, which was assessed by imaging. A correlation was not indicated with current clinically used tumor markers, including carcinoembryonic antigen, carcinoma antigen 15-3 and carcinoma antigen 19-9. The present study also indicated a correlation between cfDNA and cftDNA and the tumor volume of metastatic lesions, which was not observed with the current clinically used tumor markers. In conclusion, cfDNA and cftDNA exhibit the potential to become novel biomarkers for the response assessment following cancer treatment, and may serve as a tool for the estimation of tumor volume. The current study further supports the increasingly important role of cfDNA and cftDNA as new monitoring tools for use during cancer therapy.

Indexed as

circulating cell-free DNAcirculating cell-free tumor DNAliquid biopsyserum tumor markerstumor burdentumor-volumetry

Identifiers

PMID31966080
PMCPMC6956108

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.