Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34921020›Full record

ArticleClinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research2022

Assessing CSF ctDNA to Improve Diagnostic Accuracy and Therapeutic Monitoring in Breast Cancer Leptomeningeal Metastasis.

Amanda Fitzpatrick, Marjan Iravani, Adam Mills, Lucy Childs, Thanussuyah Alaguthurai, Angela Clifford, Isaac Garcia-Murillas, Steven Van Laere, Luc Dirix, Mark Harries and 5 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Amanda FitzpatrickThe Breast Cancer Now Toby Robins Research Centre, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom.
Marjan IravaniThe Breast Cancer Now Toby Robins Research Centre, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8620-3073
Adam MillsThe Breast Cancer Now Toby Robins Research Centre, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8396-243X
Lucy ChildsDepartment of Clinical Radiology, Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Thanussuyah AlaguthuraiBreast Cancer Now Research Unit, Guy's Hospital, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Angela CliffordBreast Cancer Now Research Unit, Guy's Hospital, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Isaac Garcia-MurillasThe Breast Cancer Now Toby Robins Research Centre, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8183-7969
Steven Van LaereTranslational Cancer Research Unit (TCRU), GZA Ziekenhuizen, Antwerp, Belgium.
Luc DirixMedical Oncology, GZA Hospital Sint-Augustinus, Antwerp, Belgium.
Mark HarriesDepartment of Medical Oncology, Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Alicia OkinesThe Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2068-2593
Nicholas C TurnerThe Breast Cancer Now Toby Robins Research Centre, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom.
Syed HaiderThe Breast Cancer Now Toby Robins Research Centre, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom.
Andrew N J TuttThe Breast Cancer Now Toby Robins Research Centre, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8715-2901
Clare M IsackeThe Breast Cancer Now Toby Robins Research Centre, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9222-3345
Breast Cancer Now · GBKing's College London · GBGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GBGZA Ziekenhuizen Campus Sint-Augustinus · BERoyal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Breast Cancer Now BREAST CANCER NOW RESEARCH CENTREBreast Cancer Now Research Unit KCL-Q2-Y1-5Breast Cancer Now Toby Robins Research Centre CTR-Q4-Y1-5Cancer Research UK CRUK RE15196-9Medical Research Council MR/P001564/1NIHR Biomedical Research Centre W94500
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCerebrospinal fluid (CSF) cytology is the gold standard diagnostic test for breast cancer leptomeningeal metastasis (BCLM), but has impaired sensitivity, often necessitating repeated lumbar puncture to confirm or refute diagnosis. Further, there is no quantitative response tool to assess response or progression during BCLM treatment. EXPERIMENTAL

designFacing the challenge of working with small-volume samples and the lack of common recurrent mutations in breast cancers, cell-free DNA was extracted from the CSF and plasma of patients undergoing investigation for BCLM (n = 30). ctDNA fraction was assessed by ultra-low-pass whole genome sequencing (ulpWGS), which does not require prior tumor sequencing.

resultsIn this proof-of-concept study, ctDNA was detected (fraction ≥0.10) in the CSF of all 24 patients with BCLM+ (median ctDNA fraction, 0.57), regardless of negative cytology or borderline MRI imaging, whereas CSF ctDNA was not detected in the six patients with BCLM- (median ctDNA fraction 0.03, P < 0.0001). Plasma ctDNA was only detected in patients with extracranial disease progression or who had previously received whole brain radiotherapy. ctDNA fraction was highly concordant with mutant allele fraction measured by tumor mutation-specific ddPCR assays (r = 0.852; P < 0.0001). During intrathecal treatment, serial monitoring (n = 12 patients) showed that suppression of CSF ctDNA fraction was associated with longer BCLM survival (P = 0.034), and rising ctDNA fraction was detectable up to 12 weeks before clinical progression.

conclusionsMeasuring ctDNA fraction by ulpWGS is a quantitative marker demonstrating potential for timely and accurate BCLM diagnosis and therapy response monitoring, with the ultimate aim to improve management of this poor-prognosis patient group.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCirculating Tumor DNAMeningeal CarcinomatosisBiomarkers, TumorFemaleHumansMutationNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalBiomarkers, TumorCirculating Tumor DNA

Identifiers

PMID34921020
PMCPMC7612501
OpenAlexW4200080628

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.