SynthesisClinical and experimental medicine2023
Clinical significance of circulating tumor DNA in localized non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical and experimental medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Circulating tumour DNA-Based molecular residual disease detection in resectable cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EBioMedicine · 2024Pooled it
- Prognostic value of preoperative circulating tumor DNA in non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2024Pooled it
- Diagnostic and Prognostic Roles of Blood-Based Immune Biomarkers in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- A comprehensive overview of minimal residual disease in the management of early-stage and locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer.NPJ precision oncology · 2025Article
- Liquid biopsy into the clinics: Current evidence and future perspectives.The journal of liquid biopsy · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) detection holds promise for genetic analyses and quantitative assessment of tumor burden. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to investigate the clinical relevance of ctDNA among patients with localized non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies published from January 2001 to April 2022. After quality assessments and data extraction, diagnostic accuracy variables and prognostic data were calculated and analyzed by Meta-Disc 1.4, Review Manager 5.4.1, and STATA 17.0. Eight prospective studies and one retrospective study including 784 patients with localized NSCLC were used in our meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of ctDNA for minimal residual disease (MRD) detection were 0.58 and 0.93, respectively. The pooled positive and negative likelihood ratios were 7.57 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.84-20.20) and 0.45 (95% CI 0.37-0.55), respectively. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.8967, and the diagnostic odds ratio was 32.26 (95% CI 14.63-71.12). In addition, both precurative-treatment and postcurative-treatment ctDNA positivity was associated with worse recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio (HR), 3.82 and 8.32, respectively) and worse overall survival (HR, 3.82 and 4.73, respectively). The findings suggested that ctDNA detection has beneficial utility regarding MRD detection specificity; moreover, positive ctDNA was associated with poor prognosis in patients with localized NSCLC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36315311What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.