ArticleCancer research and treatment2024
Evaluation of Molecular Residual Disease by a Fixed Panel in Resectable Colorectal Cancer.
Article in Cancer research and treatment, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Circulating Tumor DNA as a Real-Time Biomarker for Minimal Residual Disease and Recurrence Prediction in Stage II Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Pooled it
- Impact of methodological variability on the prognostic performance of circulating tumor DNA in colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.The journal of liquid biopsy · 2026Review
- Prognostic significance of circulating tumor DNA in non-metastatic colorectal cancer.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- A new paradigm in postoperative colorectal cancer surveillance: integrating advanced imaging and multi-omics.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeMolecular residual disease (MRD) is a promising biomarker in colorectal cancer (CRC) for prognosis and guiding treatment, while the whole-exome sequencing (WES) based tumor-informed assay is standard for evaluating MRD based on circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). In this study, we assessed the feasibility of a fixed-panel for evaluating MRD in CRC. MATERIALS AND
methodsSeventy-five patients with resectable stage I-III CRC were enrolled. Tumor tissues obtained by surgery, and preoperative and postoperative day 7 blood samples were collected. The ctDNA was evaluated using the tumor-agnostic and tumor-informed fixed assays, as well as the WES-based and panel-based personalized assays in randomly selected patients.
resultsThe tumor-informed fixed assay had a higher preoperative positive rate than the tumor-agnostic assay (73.3% vs. 57.3%). The preoperative ctDNA status failed to predict disease-free survival (DFS) in either of the fixed assays, while the tumor-informed fixed assay-determined postoperative ctDNA positivity was significantly associated with worse DFS (hazard ratio [HR], 20.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.19 to 59.83; p < 0.001), which was an independent predictor by multivariable analysis (HR, 28.57; 95% CI, 7.10 to 114.9; p < 0.001). Sub-cohort analysis indicated the WES-based personalized assay had the highest preoperative positive rate (95.1%). The two personalized assays and the tumor-informed fixed assay demonstrated same results in postoperative landmark (HR, 26.34; 95% CI, 6.01 to 115.57; p < 0.001), outperforming the tumor-agnostic fixed panel (HR, 3.04; 95% CI, 0.94 to 9.89; p=0.052).
conclusionOur study confirmed the prognostic value of the ctDNA positivity at postoperative day 7 by the tumor-informed fixed panel. The tumor-informed fixed panel may be a cost-effective method to evaluate MRD, which warrants further studies in future.
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.