ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2025
Clinical utility and tissue concordance of circulating tumor DNA in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Review
- Liquid Biopsy in Resected Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Machine learning and artificial intelligence in liquid biopsy-based early detection of pancreatic cancer: a scoping review.BJC reports · 2026Review
- Liquid Biopsy Frontiers in Pancreatic Cancer: Insights from Circulating Cell-Free Nucleic Acids.Cells · 2026Review
- Review
- ctDNA in Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Critical Appraisal.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 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
23 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe utility of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in addressing challenges of molecular tissue profiling and complementing next-generation sequencing is undefined in pancreas ductal adenocarcinoma. The objective of this study was to assess ctDNA detection rates by stage, disease burden, and metastasis patterns; compare overall survival between ctDNA-positive and ctDNA-negative patients cases; and determine concordance between ctDNA and matched-tissue biopsies.
methodsPatients with pancreas ductal adenocarcinoma who had undergone Next Generation Sequencing by the MSK-ACCESS (Memorial Sloan Kettering - Analysis of Circulating cfDNA to Evaluate Somatic Status) ctDNA assay between 2019 and 2022 were included. Clinical and survival data were abstracted from a prospectively maintained clinical database.
resultsA total of 414 patients with pancreas ductal adenocarcinoma: 28% stage I-II, 21% stage III, 51% stage IV. ctDNA detection was highest among patients with advanced disease: 75% stage IV, 38% stage III, 34% stage I-II disease. For stage IV, ctDNA was more frequently detected in patients with at least 2 organs involved vs with less than 2 organs involved (76% vs 38%, P = .025). Higher rates of ctDNA detection were observed in patients with liver metastases vs without (82% vs 52%, P < .001). In the untreated stage IV cohort (n = 120), median overall survival was 10 months for those with detectable ctDNA (95% CI = 6.9 to 14 months) vs 19 months (95% CI = 13 months to not reached) for those with undetectable ctDNA (P = .1). Concordance between ctDNA and matched tissue next-generation sequencing was lower in untreated stage I-III disease, but high for untreated stage IV pancreas ductal adenocarcinoma, including a critical success index of 93.1% of KRAS variants.
conclusionctDNA is a promising tool in the detection of somatic variants in pancreas ductal adenocarcinoma. Concordance between ctDNA and tissue is high for patients with untreated metastatic disease, notably for detection of KRAS variants.
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.