ArticleBreast cancer (Tokyo, Japan)2026
Prognostic and monitoring value of circulating tumor DNA at multiple clinical time points in breast cancer.
Article in Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evolution of the Use of Circulating DNA as a Biomarker in Neoadjuvant Therapy of Breast Cancer.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Review
- Circulating tumor DNA in neoadjuvant therapy for solid tumors.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
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
Abstract
backgroundCirculating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has emerged as a prognostic biomarker for breast cancer, potentially offering a more comprehensive representation of tumor genetic heterogeneity. In this study, we assessed the prognostic and monitoring values of ctDNA at multiple clinical time points during diagnosis and therapy.
methodsA total of 119 patients with breast cancer underwent ctDNA analysis using next-generation sequencing, targeting 47 breast cancer-related genes at three predefined time points (baseline, post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy [post-NAC], and follow-up). Disease-free survival (DFS) was analyzed based on ctDNA status.
resultsctDNA was detected in 50.9% of patients at baseline, 25.0% post-NAC, and 58.3% during follow-up. ctDNA positivity was associated with worse DFS at baseline (hazard ratio [HR] 7.54, 95% CI: 1.71-33.17, P = 0.008), post-NAC (HR 3.54, 95% CI: 1.24-10.12, P = 0.018), and follow-up (HR 7.68, 95% CI: 0.98-59.97, P = 0.052). TP53 mutations were the most frequently observed, present in 37.5%, 14.8%, and 20.4% of patients at baseline, post-NAC, and follow-up, respectively. PIK3CA mutations were the second most common, detected in 11.6%, 4.5%, and 5.8% of patients, respectively. ctDNA positivity for these mutations consistently showed elevated HRs for disease progression across clinical time points (HR range, 2.73-20.49). ctDNA non-clearance was associated with the highest risk of disease progression (HR 81.09, P < 0.001) and remained the strongest independent prognostic factor in the multivariate analysis (HR 52.07, P < 0.001).
conclusionsctDNA analysis provides significant clinical utility for prognostic stratification and disease monitoring in breast cancer management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41619106What 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.