Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40819167›Full record

ReviewNPJ breast cancer2025

Bridging the gap: ctDNA, genomics, and equity in breast cancer care.

Julia Aronson, Manasa Bhatta, Lisa A Carey, Kunal Jobanputra, Gaorav P Gupta, Yara Abdou

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in NPJ breast cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors.

Julia AronsonDepartment of Medicine, Division of Oncology, UNC Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Manasa BhattaDepartment of Medicine, Division of Oncology, UNC Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Lisa A CareyDepartment of Medicine, Division of Oncology, UNC Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Kunal JobanputraDepartment of Medical Oncology, MOC Cancer Care & Research Centre, Mumbai, India.
Gaorav P GuptaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, UNC Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Yara AbdouDepartment of Medicine, Division of Oncology, UNC Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. yara_abdou@med.unc.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has emerged as a powerful tool in precision oncology, offering a noninvasive approach to tumor profiling, minimal residual disease (MRD), and treatment monitoring. In breast cancer, ctDNA has shown promise in both metastatic and early-stage settings. However, its application and benefits have not been equitably realized across all populations. In this review, we examined the current evidence on ctDNA detection, assay performance, and clinical utility specifically within racially, ethnically, and geographically underrepresented populations. We synthesized data from genomic studies, ctDNA-based trials, and implementation research to identify disparities in ctDNA levels, mutational profiles, testing utilization, and access to genotype-matched therapies. These disparities were further compounded by structural barriers such as insurance coverage, geographic access, and limited inclusion in clinical research. Global data from low- and middle-income countries reinforced both the feasibility and the challenges of ctDNA implementation in resource-constrained settings. While ctDNA holds considerable potential to personalize breast cancer care, our findings underscore the urgent need to integrate equity into its validation, clinical application, and policy development to avoid perpetuating existing disparities.

Identifiers

PMID40819167
PMCPMC12357940

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.