Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37837629›Full record

ArticleCancer communications (London, England)2023

Residual circulating tumor DNA after adjuvant chemotherapy effectively predicts recurrence of stage II-III gastric cancer.

Shu-Qiang Yuan, Run-Cong Nie, You-Sheng Huang, Ying-Bo Chen, Si-Yu Wang, Xiao-Wei Sun, Yuan-Fang Li, Ze-Kun Liu, Yan-Xing Chen, Yi-Chen Yao and 9 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer communications (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02887612 (A Prospective Study of Blood Circulating Tumor DNA for the Prediction of Postoperative Relapse in Early and Intermediate-Stage Gastric Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 25 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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.

NCT02887612 unknown statusnot on this map

A Prospective Study of Blood Circulating Tumor DNA for the Prediction of Postoperative Relapse in Early and Intermediate-Stage Gastric Cancer

TypeobservationalSponsorSun Yat-sen UniversityRan2016 to 2020Enrolled200ConditionsStomach NeoplasmsArmsctDNA test
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

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

19 authors at 1 institution in 3 countries.

Shu-Qiang YuanDepartment of Gastric Surgery, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Run-Cong NieDepartment of Gastric Surgery, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P. R. China.ORCID 0000-0003-3595-6304
You-Sheng HuangDepartment of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Ying-Bo ChenDepartment of Gastric Surgery, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Si-Yu WangDepartment of Gastric Surgery, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Xiao-Wei SunDepartment of Gastric Surgery, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Yuan-Fang LiDepartment of Gastric Surgery, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P. R. China.ORCID 0000-0003-1762-2634
Ze-Kun LiuDepartment of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Yan-Xing ChenDepartment of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Yi-Chen YaoDepartment of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Yu XuDepartment of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Hai-Bo QiuDepartment of Gastric Surgery, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P. R. China.ORCID 0000-0001-9360-6682
Yao LiangDepartment of Gastric Surgery, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Wei WangDepartment of Gastric Surgery, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Ze-Xian LiuDepartment of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Qi ZhaoDepartment of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P. R. China.ORCID 0000-0002-8683-6145
Rui-Hua XuDepartment of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P. R. China.ORCID 0000-0001-9771-8534
Zhi-Wei ZhouDepartment of Gastric Surgery, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Feng WangDepartment of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P. R. China.ORCID 0000-0001-7668-9674
Academy of Medical Sciences · GB

Funding

CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences (CIFMS) 2019-I2M-5-036Guangdong Esophageal Cancer Institute Science and Technology Program M202210International Cooperation and Exchanges National Natural Science Foundation of China 82061160373National Natural Science Foundation of China 81872011Science and Technology Program of Guangdong 2019B020227002Sun Yat-sen University Clinical Research 5010 Program 2018014Young Physician Scientist Program of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCirculating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is a promising biomarker for predicting relapse in multiple solid cancers. However, the predictive value of ctDNA for disease recurrence remains indefinite in locoregional gastric cancer (GC). Here, we aimed to evaluate the predictive value of ctDNA in this context.

methodsFrom 2016 to 2019, 100 patients with stage II/III resectable GC were recruited in this prospective cohort study (NCT02887612). Primary tumors were collected during surgical resection, and plasma samples were collected perioperatively and within 3 months after adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT). Somatic variants were captured via a targeted sequencing panel of 425 cancer-related genes. The plasma was defined as ctDNA-positive only if one or more variants detected in the plasma were presented in at least 2% of the primary tumors.

resultsCompared with ctDNA-negative patients, patients with positive postoperative ctDNA had moderately higher risk of recurrence [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.37-5.48; P = 0.003], while patients with positive post-ACT ctDNA showed remarkably higher risk (HR = 14.99, 95% CI = 3.08-72.96; P < 0.001). Multivariate analyses indicated that both postoperative and post-ACT ctDNA positivity were independent predictors of recurrence-free survival (RFS). Moreover, post-ACT ctDNA achieved better predictive performance (sensitivity, 77.8%; specificity, 90.6%) than both postoperative ctDNA and serial cancer antigen. A comprehensive model incorporating ctDNA for recurrence risk prediction showed a higher C-index (0.78; 95% CI = 0.71-0.84) than the model without ctDNA (0.71; 95% CI = 0.64-0.79; P = 0.009).

conclusionsResidual ctDNA after ACT effectively predicts high recurrence risk in stage II/III GC, and the combination of tissue-based and circulating tumor features could achieve better risk prediction.

Indexed as

Circulating Tumor DNAStomach NeoplasmsChemotherapy, AdjuvantCohort StudiesHumansNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalProspective StudiesCirculating Tumor DNAchemotherapyctDNAgastric cancerpostoperativerecurrence

Identifiers

PMID37837629
PMCPMC10693304
OpenAlexW4387639170

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.