ArticlePloS one2026
Feasibility of tumor-informed circulating tumor DNA for detecting minimal residual disease in surgically resected biliary tract cancer.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Circulating tumor DNA-based detection of molecular residual disease in isocitrate dehydrogenase-mutant cholangiocarcinoma for biomarker-guided therapy.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Review
- Recent Advances in Pancreatic Cancer and Biliary Tract Cancers: Biology, Biomarkers, and Evolving Systemic Therapy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe prospectively investigated the potential of tumor-informed circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) for detecting minimal residual disease (MRD) in surgically resected biliary tract cancer (BTC).
methodsPersonalized panels were developed using individual variants identified from the whole-exome sequencing of surgical specimens from each patient. Two sequential blood samples, collected preoperatively and within 6 weeks after surgery, were analyzed. A positive ctDNA result was defined as the identification of two or more patient-specific mutations.
resultsA total of 18 patients were enrolled. However, 1 patient was excluded due to inoperability detected during surgery, and personalized target panels could not be created for 3 patients due to a low number of target variants, resulting in the analysis of 14 patients. There was a tendency for a higher preoperative ctDNA positivity rate in an advanced overall stage (100% in stage III-IV vs. 44.4% in stage I-II, p = 0.126) and node-positive disease (100% in node-positive vs. 60% in node-negative, p = 0.210). After a median follow-up of 17.4 months (range, 11.4-31.1), the 1-year and 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 78.6% and 58.2%, respectively. Changes in ctDNA positivity status were negative to negative in 3 patients (25.0%), positive to negative in 3 patients (25.0%), and positive to positive in 6 patients (50%). Additionally, there was a trend for an association between poorer PFS and both preoperative and postoperative ctDNA positivity. Among ctDNA-negative patients before surgery, no progression was observed; however, 5 out of 10 ctDNA-positive patients experienced progression. Postoperatively, only 1 out of 6 ctDNA-negative patients experienced progression, in contrast to 3 out of 6 patients with a positive ctDNA result.
conclusionsAlthough limited by the small sample size, our results may indicate a possible role for tumor-informed ctDNA analysis in detecting MRD in surgically resected BTC and warrant further validation in larger studies.
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.