ArticleThoracic cancer2025
Exploring the Clinical Value of Perioperative ctDNA-Based Detection of Molecular Residual Disease in Patients With Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.
Article in Thoracic cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Circulating Tumor DNA for Minimal Residual Disease Detection and Recurrence Prediction in Upper Gastrointestinal Cancers: A Scoping Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Practical integration of ctDNA-defined minimal residual disease in gastrointestinal cancers: testing windows and evidence-aligned management frameworks.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Review
- Preoperative Circulating Tumor DNA Detection and Risk Stratification in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.JAMA surgery · 2026Article
- Integration of habitat radiomics and traditional radiomic features for predicting pathological complete response in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma following neoadjuvant immunotherapy and chemotherapy: a multicenter comparative study.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo explore the clinical value of molecular residual disease detection based on circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA-MRD) in the perioperative period of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) and to analyze the tumor escape mechanisms in MRD-positive cases.
methodsA total of 35 ESCC patients were prospectively enrolled. Preoperative and postoperative (1 month after surgery) blood and surgical tissue samples were analyzed. ctDNA variants were tracked in plasma to assess ctDNA-MRD, and whole-transcriptome sequencing was performed on MRD-positive and MRD-negative tissue samples.
resultsPreoperative blood ctDNA was positive in 54.3% of patients, with a 31.6% positive predictive value for recurrence. One month postsurgery, the positive rate of ctDNA was 17.1%, with an 83.3% predictive value for recurrence. Both preoperative and postoperative ctDNA positivity were significant prognostic indicators (HR = 2.78, p < 0.05; HR = 4.42, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis confirmed ctDNA as an independent prognostic factor (HR = 303.75, p < 0.001). Transcriptomic analysis revealed increased macrophage (W = 15 848; p < 0.01) and follicular helper T (Tfh) cell (W = 10 935; p < 0.01) levels in MRD-positive patients, suggesting a potential link to immune escape in tumors.
conclusionsPlasma ctDNA measured 1 month postoperatively in ESCC patients can effectively detect MRD, and ctDNA-MRD serves as an independent risk factor for postoperative recurrence. The mechanism underlying MRD positivity may involve the polarization of Tfh cells and macrophages, aiding tumor cells in immune escape through the bloodstream.
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.