Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39175989›Full record

ArticleTherapeutic advances in medical oncology2024

Early evaluation of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ctDNA-guided selection for adjuvant chemotherapy in stage II colon cancer.

Astrid Kramer, Marjolein J E Greuter, Suzanna J Schraa, Geraldine R Vink, Jillian Phallen, Victor E Velculescu, Gerrit A Meijer, Daan van den Broek, Miriam Koopman, Jeanine M L Roodhart and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Texture analysis of [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Observational
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Liquid Biopsy: The Challenges of a Revolutionary Approach in Oncology.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  18. Article
  19. A scoping review of factors influencing the implementation of liquid biopsy for cancer care.Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR · 2025
    Article
  20. Review
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

13 authors.

Astrid KramerDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, De Boelelaan 1089a, Amsterdam, Noord-Holland 1081 HV, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2201-5794
Marjolein J E GreuterDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6151-3382
Suzanna J SchraaDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Geraldine R VinkDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Jillian PhallenThe Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Victor E VelculescuThe Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Gerrit A MeijerDepartment of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Daan van den BroekDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Miriam KoopmanDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Jeanine M L RoodhartDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Remond J A FijnemanDepartment of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Valesca P RetèlDepartment of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Veerle M H CoupéDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Current patient selection for adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) after curative surgery for stage II colon cancer (CC) is suboptimal, causing overtreatment of high-risk patients and undertreatment of low-risk patients. Postoperative circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) could improve patient selection for ACT. Objectives: We conducted an early model-based evaluation of the (cost-)effectiveness of ctDNA-guided selection for ACT in stage II CC in the Netherlands to assess the conditions for cost-effective implementation. Methods: A validated Markov model, simulating 1000 stage II CC patients from diagnosis to death, was supplemented with ctDNA data. Five ACT selection strategies were evaluated: the current guideline (pT4, pMMR), ctDNA-only, and three strategies that combined ctDNA status with pT4 and pMMR status in different ways. For each strategy, the costs, life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), recurrences, and CC deaths were estimated. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of the costs of ctDNA testing, strategy adherence, ctDNA as a predictive biomarker, and ctDNA test performance. Results: Model predictions showed that compared to current guidelines, the ctDNA-only strategy was less effective (+2.2% recurrences, -0.016 QALYs), while the combination strategies were more effective (-3.6% recurrences, +0.038 QALYs). The combination strategies were not cost-effective, since the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €67,413 per QALY, exceeding the willingness-to-pay threshold of €50,000 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses showed that the combination strategies would be cost-effective if the ctDNA test costs were lower than €1500, or if ctDNA status was predictive of treatment response, or if the ctDNA test performance improved substantially. Conclusion: Adding ctDNA to current high-risk clinicopathological features (pT4 and pMMR) can improve patient selection for ACT and can also potentially be cost-effective. Future studies should investigate the predictive value of post-surgery ctDNA status to accurately evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ctDNA testing for ACT decisions in stage II CC.

Indexed as

adjuvant chemotherapycolon cancercost-effectivenessctDNAprognostic biomarker

Identifiers

PMID39175989
PMCPMC11339739

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.