Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39777588›Full record

ReviewMolecular biology reports2025

Minimal residue disease detection in early-stage breast cancer: a review.

Yuan Zhang, Xiaoying Yuan

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Molecular biology reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Yuan ZhangCollege of Art and Science, Northeast Agricultural University, Changjiang Road No. 600, Harbin, 150030, China.
Xiaoying YuanShuwen Biotech Co., Ltd., Moganshan National High tech Zone, Building 3, No. 333, Changhong Middle Street, Deqing, China. yuanxy@shuwendx.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past five years, circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing has emerged as a game-changer in cancer research, serving as a less invasive and highly sensitive method to monitor tumor dynamics. CtDNA testing has a wide range of potential applications in breast cancer (BC) management, including diagnosis, monitoring treatment responses, identifying resistance mutations, predicting prognosis, and detecting future relapses. In this review, we focus on the prognostic and predictive value of ctDNA testing for BC in both neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings. We also examine the rationale behind mainstream minimal residue disease (MRD) tracking methods and highlight key considerations for successful MRD testing. Clinical evidence has shown that ctDNA-based MRD testing can accurately detect molecular relapse 8-12 months before clinical relapse in early-stage BC. Compared to advanced-stage BC, detecting ctDNA in early-stage BC is more challenging and requires ultra-sensitive testing methods due to the low levels of ctDNA released into the bloodstream, particularly in post-surgical settings, after effective neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and in late adjuvant settings that require longer follow-up. Therefore, future efforts are needed to generate additional clinical evidence in these settings to support the clinical utility and widespread adoption of ctDNA-based MRD testing.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorBreast NeoplasmsCirculating Tumor DNANeoplasm, ResidualEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansNeoadjuvant TherapyNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm StagingPrognosisBiomarkers, TumorCirculating Tumor DNABreast cancerCtDNAMinimal residue disease (MRD)Relapse

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.