Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34994972›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of cancer2022

Circulating tumor DNA for prognosis assessment and postoperative management after curative-intent resection of colorectal liver metastases.

Thomas Reinert, Lena Marie Skindhøj Petersen, Tenna Vesterman Henriksen, Marie Øbo Larsen, Mads Heilskov Rasmussen, Amanda Frydendahl Boll Johansen, Nadia Øgaard, Michael Knudsen, Iver Nordentoft, Søren Vang and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

14 authors.

Thomas ReinertDepartment of Molecular Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Lena Marie Skindhøj PetersenDepartment of Molecular Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Tenna Vesterman HenriksenDepartment of Molecular Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Marie Øbo LarsenDepartment of Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Mads Heilskov RasmussenDepartment of Molecular Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Amanda Frydendahl Boll JohansenDepartment of Molecular Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Nadia ØgaardDepartment of Molecular Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Michael KnudsenDepartment of Molecular Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Iver NordentoftDepartment of Molecular Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Søren VangDepartment of Molecular Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Søren Rasmus Palmelund KragDepartment of Pathology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Anders Riegels KnudsenDepartment of Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Frank Viborg MortensenDepartment of Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Claus Lindbjerg AndersenDepartment of Molecular Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-7406-2103

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The recurrence rate of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) patients treated with curative intent is above 50%. Standard of care surveillance includes intensive computed tomographic (CT) imaging as well as carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) measurements. Nonetheless, relapse detection often happens too late to resume curative treatment. This longitudinal cohort study enrolled 115 patients with plasma samples (N = 439) prospectively collected before surgery, postoperatively at day 30 and every third month for up to 3 years. Droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) was used to monitor serial plasma samples for somatic mutations. Assessment of ctDNA status either immediately after surgery, or serially during surveillance, stratified the patients into groups of high and low recurrence risk (hazard ratio [HR], 7.6; 95% CI, 3.0-19.7; P < .0001; and HR, 4.3; 95% CI, 2.3-8.1; P < .0001, respectively). The positive predictive value (PPV) of ctDNA was 100% in all postoperative analyses. In multivariable analyses, postoperative ctDNA status was the only consistently significant risk marker associated with relapse (P < .0001). Indeterminate CT findings were observed for 30.8% (21/68) of patients. All patients (9/21) that were ctDNA positive at the time of the indeterminate CT scan later relapsed, contrasting 42.6% (5/12) of those ctDNA negative (P = .0046). Recurrence diagnoses in patients with indeterminate CT findings were delayed (median 2.8 months, P < .0001). ctDNA status is strongly associated with detection of minimal residual disease and early detection of relapse. Furthermore, ctDNA status can potentially contribute to clinical decision-making in case of indeterminate CT findings, reducing time-to-intervention.

Indexed as

Circulating Tumor DNAColorectal NeoplasmsLiver NeoplasmsBiomarkers, TumorHumansLongitudinal StudiesNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPrognosisProspective StudiesBiomarkers, TumorCirculating Tumor DNAcirculating tumor DNAcolorectal cancer liver metastasesdroplet digital PCRminimal residual diseaserecurrence surveillance

Identifiers

PMID34994972
PMCPMC9303459

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.