ArticleTurkish journal of medical sciences2024
Correlation between plasma ccfDNA, mtDNA changes, CTCs, and epithelial-mesenchymal transition in breast cancer patients undergoing NACT.
Article in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evolution of the Use of Circulating DNA as a Biomarker in Neoadjuvant Therapy of Breast Cancer.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Review
- Salivary Metabolic Characteristics and Response to Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy in Breast Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Circulating Cell-Free DNA Integrity for Breast and Prostate Cancer: What Is the Landscape for Clinical Management of the Most Common Cancers in Women and Men?International journal of molecular sciences · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/aim: Breast cancer is the most prevalent cancer in women, emphasizing need for noninvasive blood biomarkers to aid in treatment selection. Previous studies have demonstrated elevated levels of plasma circulating cell-free DNA (ccfDNA) in breast cancer patients. Both ccfDNA and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) are fragments released into the bloodstream. In this study, we investigated effectiveness of ccfDNA and mtDNA as indicators of treatment response and explored their potential as monitoring biomarkers. Additionally, we compared these markers with circulating tumor cell (CTC) data and assessed their relationship with epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT). Materials and methods: Thirty-six female breast cancer patients and 21 healthy females were included in the study. Quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) was performed on plasma samples to measure levels of ND1, ND4, ALU115, ALU247, and GAPDH, and DNA integrity was determined by calculating ratios of ALU247/ALU115 and ND4/ND1. Results: After treatment, patients had a significant decrease in ccfDNA levels and a significant increase in mtDNA copy number (mtDNAcn). However, there was no significant change in ccfDNA and mtDNA integrity. When comparing all groups, patients exhibited higher levels of ALU115 and ALU247 compared to controls. Moreover, patients demonstrated significantly lower ccfDNA integrity than controls. Conclusion: This study represents the first comprehensive investigation of plasma ccfDNA levels, mtDNAcn, and integrities collectively. Furthermore, it is the first study to explore the relationship between these markers and CTCs, cancer stem cell markers, treatment response, and metastatic status. Our findings suggest that plasma ccfDNA and mtDNA may serve as potential biomarkers for assessing chemotherapy response and can be employed alone or in combination with other biomarkers to monitor treatment efficacy in breast cancer patients.
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.