Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33001984›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2020

Circulating tumour DNA in metastatic breast cancer to guide clinical trial enrolment and precision oncology: A cohort study.

Andjelija Zivanovic Bujak, Chen-Fang Weng, Maria João Silva, Miriam Yeung, Louisa Lo, Sarah Ftouni, Cassandra Litchfield, Yi-An Ko, Keilly Kuykhoven, Courtney Van Geelen and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Impact of Sensitive Circulating Tumor DNA Monitoring on CT Scan Intervals During Postoperative Colorectal Cancer Surveillance.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2025
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

15 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Andjelija Zivanovic BujakPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1107-0744
Chen-Fang WengPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Maria João SilvaPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0803-6561
Miriam YeungPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9455-1887
Louisa LoPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7426-7953
Sarah FtouniPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8043-5164
Cassandra LitchfieldPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9374-1681
Yi-An KoPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Keilly KuykhovenPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5167-4468
Courtney Van GeelenPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Sushma ChandrashekarPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Mark A DawsonPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5464-5029
Sherene LoiPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6137-9171
Stephen Q WongPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7335-2168
Sarah-Jane DawsonPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8276-0374
Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre · AUThe University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMetastatic breast cancer (mBC) is a heterogenous disease with increasing availability of targeted therapies as well as emerging genomic markers of therapeutic resistance, necessitating timely and accurate molecular characterization of disease. As a minimally invasive test, analysis of circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) is well positioned for real-time genomic profiling to guide treatment decisions. Here, we report the results of a prospective testing program established to assess the feasibility of ctDNA analysis to guide clinical management of mBC patients. METHODS AND

findingsTwo hundred thirty-four mBC patients (median age 54 years) were enrolled between June 2015 and October 2018 at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia. Median follow-up was 15 months (range 1-46). All patient samples at the time of enrolment were analysed in real time for the presence of somatic mutations. Longitudinal plasma testing during the course of patient management was also undertaken in a subset of patients (n = 67, 28.6%), according to clinician preference, for repeated molecular profiling or disease monitoring. Detection of somatic mutations from patient plasma was performed using a multiplexed droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) approach to identify hotspot mutations in PIK3CA, ESR1, ERBB2, and AKT1. In parallel, subsets of samples were also analysed via next-generation sequencing (targeted panel sequencing and low-coverage whole-genome sequencing [LC-WGS]). The sensitivity of ddPCR and targeted panel sequencing to identify actionable mutations was compared. Results were discussed at a multidisciplinary breast cancer meeting prior to treatment decisions. ddPCR and targeted panel sequencing identified at least 1 actionable mutation at baseline in 80/234 (34.2%) and 62/159 (39.0%) of patients tested, respectively. Combined, both methods detected an actionable alteration in 104/234 patients (44.4%) through baseline or serial ctDNA testing. LC-WGS was performed on 27 patients from the cohort, uncovering several recurrently amplified regions including 11q13.3 encompassing CCND1. Increasing ctDNA levels were associated with inferior overall survival, whether assessed by ddPCR, targeted sequencing, or LC-WGS. Overall, the ctDNA results changed clinical management in 40 patients including the direct recruitment of 20 patients to clinical trials. Limitations of the study were that it was conducted at a single site and that 31.3% of participants were lost to follow-up.

conclusionIn this study, we found prospective ctDNA testing to be a practical and feasible approach that can guide clinical trial enrolment and patient management in mBC.

Indexed as

AustraliaBiomarkers, TumorBreast NeoplasmsCell-Free Nucleic AcidsCirculating Tumor DNAClass I Phosphatidylinositol 3-KinasesCohort StudiesErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesEstrogen Receptor alphaFemaleGenomicsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMiddle AgedMultiplex Polymerase Chain ReactionMutationAKT1 protein, humanBiomarkers, TumorCell-Free Nucleic AcidsCirculating Tumor DNAClass I Phosphatidylinositol 3-KinasesERBB2 protein, humanErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesESR1 protein, humanEstrogen Receptor alphaPIK3CA protein, humanProto-Oncogene Proteins c-akt

Identifiers

PMID33001984
PMCPMC7529214
OpenAlexW3091195356

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.