Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41485117›Full record

ArticleCancer2026

Circulating tumor DNA informs clinical practice in patients with recurrent/metastatic gastroesophageal cancers.

Rutika Mehta, Samuel Rivero-Hinojosa, Farshid Dayyani, Jenifer Ferguson, Bushra Shariff, Vasily N Aushev, Griffin L Budde, J Bryce Ortiz, Giby V George, Shruti Sharma and 4 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

14 authors.

Rutika MehtaDivision of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine/New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, USA.
Samuel Rivero-HinojosaNatera, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA.
Farshid DayyaniChao Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California Irvine Health, Orange, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4970-5189
Jenifer FergusonNatera, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA.
Bushra ShariffDepartment of Internal Medicine, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, USA.
Vasily N AushevNatera, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA.
Griffin L BuddeNatera, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA.
J Bryce OrtizNatera, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3126-9171
Giby V GeorgeNatera, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA.
Shruti SharmaNatera, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA.
Adham A JurdiNatera, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2985-3053
Minetta C LiuNatera, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA.
Ronald L DrenglerMedical Oncology, The START Center for Cancer Care, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
Samuel J KlempnerMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Funding

Natera Inc.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCirculating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is a valuable biomarker for assessing treatment response and molecular residual disease. In advanced esophageal and gastric cancer (gastroesophageal cancer [EGC]), ctDNA dynamics remain poorly understood. The authors investigated ctDNA in patients with advanced EGC to evaluate its clinical utility.

methodsThis was a multi-institutional, retrospective analysis of 200 patients with recurrent/metastatic EGCs who underwent commercial ctDNA testing using a personalized, tumor-informed assay (Signatera; Natera, Inc.). Patients were divided into cohort A (N = 36; stage I-III with recurrence) or cohort B (N = 164; metastatic at diagnosis). Longitudinal ctDNA dynamics were correlated with clinical and radiographic findings.

resultsIn cohort A, 31 of 36 patients (86.1%) had ctDNA collected ≤90 days before recurrence; of these, 25 of 31 patients (80.65%) were ctDNA-positive before recurrence. In cohort B, baseline ctDNA was available for 29 of 164 patients (17.68%), and all 29 were ctDNA-positive. Among 52 patients who had on-treatment ctDNA assessments, 62 treatment lines were analyzed (N = 6 in cohort A; N = 46 in cohort B). All who remained ctDNA-negative throughout treatment (Neg-Neg) showed treatment benefit (n = 6 of 6). Those who converted to ctDNA-positive (Neg-Pos) progressed (n = 2 of 2). Among ctDNA-positive patients (Pos-Pos), 27 of 40 (67.5%) showed treatment benefit, whereas 13 of 40 (32.5%) progressed. Patients who cleared ctDNA (Pos-Neg) had favorable outcomes (12 of 14 patients; 85.7%). A decrease >90% in ctDNA levels among Pos-Pos patients was linked to superior progression-fee survival. Grouping treatment lines into favorable (Neg-Neg, Pos-Neg, and Pos-Pos with >90% decrease) versus unfavorable (Neg-Pos and Pos-Pos with a <90% decrease or an increase) had significantly improved progression-free survival in the favorable group (p < .0001).

conclusionsctDNA dynamics predicted progression and may guide treatment or imaging. ctDNA offers a minimally invasive, cost-effective adjunct to radiographic surveillance.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorCirculating Tumor DNAEsophageal NeoplasmsNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalStomach NeoplasmsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm MetastasisPrognosisRetrospective StudiesBiomarkers, TumorCirculating Tumor DNAcirculating tumor DNA (ctDNA)ctDNA dynamicsmetastatic gastroesophageal cancertreatment response

Identifiers

PMID41485117
PMCPMC12914159

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.