ReviewCancers2023
Circulating Tumour DNA (ctDNA) as a Predictor of Clinical Outcome in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Undergoing Targeted Therapies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cancers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.
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
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- Molecular Response Assessment From Circulating Tumor DNA in Patients With Ovarian Cancer Treated With the WEE1 Inhibitor Azenosertib.JCO precision oncology · 2026Article
- Molecules of lung cancer - fusion alterations in nonsmall cell lung cancer: biology and diagnostic considerations.Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2026Review
- Exploring genomic analysis and methylome profiling in longitudinal series of p.G12C KRAS mutated NSCLC patients treated with sotorasib.The journal of liquid biopsy · 2026Article
- Liquid biopsy epigenetics: establishing a molecular profile based on cell-free DNA.Molecular oncology · 2026Review
- Non-small cell lung cancer research: advances and persistent challenges.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Circulating tumor DNA as prognostic markers of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a systematic review and meta-analysis.Translational lung cancer research · 2025Article
- Advancements in lung cancer: molecular insights, innovative therapies, and future prospects.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2025Review
- Diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer: A molecular perspective.World journal of clinical oncology · 2025Article
- The APPLE's core question-upfront osimertinib versus the sequential approach forJournal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- The IASLC uncertain resection, general overview, current evidence, and future prospects: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2025Review
- The Role of ctDNA in the Management of Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer in the AI and NGS Era.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Recent advances in lung cancer research: unravelling the future of treatment.Updates in surgery · 2024Review
- The APPLE trial in the evolving landscape of ctDNA monitoring.Translational lung cancer research · 2024Article
- Relationship of tumor fraction in circulating tumor DNA with prognosis in patients with advanced urothelial cancer.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2024Article
- Plasma-Based Comprehensive Genomic Profiling DNA Assays for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Health Technology Assessment.Ontario health technology assessment series · 2024Article
- ctDNACancer management and research · 2024Article
- The utility of liquid biopsy in clinical genetic diagnosis of cancer and monogenic mosaic disorders.Medizinische Genetik : Mitteilungsblatt des Berufsverbandes Medizinische Genetik e.V · 2023Article
- Impact of cfDNA Reference Materials on Clinical Performance of Liquid Biopsy NGS Assays.Cancers · 2023Article
- The Clinical Significance of Circulating Tumor DNA for Minimal Residual Disease Identification in Early-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- What is the ideal endpoint in early-stage immunotherapy neoadjuvant trials in lung cancer?Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLiquid biopsy (LB) analysis using (ctDNA)/cell-free DNA (cfDNA) is an emerging alternative to tissue profiling in (NSCLC). LB is used to guide treatment decisions, detect resistance mechanisms, and predicts responses, and, therefore, outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the impact of LB quantification on clinical outcomes in molecularly altered advanced NSCLC undergoing targeted therapies.
methodsWe searched Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Cochrane Database, between 1 January 2020 and 31 August 2022. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), sensitivity, and specificity. Age stratification was performed based on the mean age of the individual study population. The quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS).
resultsA total of 27 studies (3419 patients) were included in the analysis. Association of baseline ctDNA with PFS was reported in 11 studies (1359 patients), while that of dynamic changes with PFS was reported in 16 studies (1659 patients). Baseline ctDNA-negative patients had a trend towards improved PFS (pooled hazard ratio [pHR] = 1.35; 95%CI: 0.83-1.87;
conclusionsThis large systematic review, despite heterogeneity, found that baseline negative ctDNA levels and early reduction in ctDNA following treatment could be strong prognostic markers for PFS and OS in patients undergoing targeted therapies for advanced NSCLC. Future randomised clinical trials should incorporate serial ctDNA monitoring to further establish the clinical utility in advanced NSCLC management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.