ArticleTherapeutic advances in medical oncology2024
Circulating tumor DNA analysis predicts recurrence and avoids unnecessary adjuvant chemotherapy in I-IV colorectal cancer.
Article in Therapeutic advances in medical oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Assessing Circulating Tumour DNA (ctDNA) as a Biomarker for Anal Cancer Management: A Systematic Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Pooled it
- Efficacy of circulating tumour DNA in guiding postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy for resectable colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis based on cohort studies.Oncology letters · 2026Article
- Circulating tumor DNA in appendiceal malignancies: a comprehensive review of clinical applications and limitations.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Targeting molecular residual disease and immune escape in colorectal cancer recurrence: biomarker-guided immunotherapy and cell therapies.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- ctDNA in the Management of Resectable & Advanced Colorectal Cancer: Current Status and Future Directions.OncoTargets and therapy · 2026Review
- The Clinical Utility of Cell-Free DNA in Brain Tumor Management: A Comprehensive Review.Journal of molecular neuroscience : MN · 2025Review
- Article
- A 14-Gene Panel for Predicting Colorectal Cancer Recurrence Using Circulating Tumor DNA in Different Testing Conditions.Cancer science · 2025Article
- Circulating tumor DNA to monitor treatment response in solid tumors and advance precision oncology.NPJ precision oncology · 2025Review
- Clinical trial and real-world evidence of circulating tumor DNA monitoring to predict recurrence in patients with resected colorectal cancer.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has emerged as a biomarker that can define the risk of recurrence after curative-intent surgery for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). However, beyond the predictive power of postoperative ctDNA detection, the efficacy and potential limitations of ctDNA detection urgently need to be fully elucidated in a large cohort of CRC. Objectives: To define potentially cured CRC patients through ctDNA monitoring following surgery. Design: A prospective, multicenter, observational study. Methods: We enrolled 309 patients with stages I-IV CRC who underwent definitive surgery. Tumor tissues were sequenced by a custom-designed next-generation sequencing panel to identify somatic mutations. Plasma was analyzed using a ctDNA-based molecular residual disease (MRD) assay which integrated tumor-genotype-informed and tumor-genotype-naïve ctDNA analysis. The turnaround time of the assay was 10-14 days. Results: Postoperative ctDNA was detected in 5.4%, 13.8%, 15%, and 30% of patients with stage I, II, III, and IV disease, respectively, and in 17.5% of all longitudinal samples. Patients with positive postsurgery MRD had a higher recurrence rate than those with negative postsurgery MRD [hazard ratio (HR), 13.17; p < 0.0001], producing a sensitivity of 64.6%, a specificity of 94.8%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 75.6%, and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 91.5%. Furthermore, patients with positive longitudinal MRD also had a significantly higher recurrence rate (HR, 14.44; p < 0.0001), with increased sensitivity (75.0%), specificity (94.9%), PPV (79.6%), and NPV (93.4%). Subgroup analyses revealed that adjuvant therapy did not confer superior survival for patients with undetectable or detectable MRD. In addition, MRD detection was less effective in identifying lung-only and peritoneal metastases. Conclusion: Postoperative ctDNA status is a strong predictor of recurrence independent of stage and microsatellite instability status. Longitudinal undetectable MRD could be used to define the potentially cured population in CRC patients undergoing curative-intent surgery.
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.