ArticleNPJ breast cancer2026
Tracking response to neoadjuvant systemic therapy through circulating tumor DNA analysis in breast cancer.
Article in NPJ breast cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) is a standard treatment approach for patients with early-stage breast cancer, particularly those with stage II-III disease and aggressive subtypes such as HER2-positive and triple-negative breast cancer. While NST improves surgical outcomes and provides prognostic information, accurately assessing preoperative treatment response remains a clinical challenge. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has emerged as a promising non-invasive biomarker for monitoring disease dynamics and guiding therapeutic decisions. In this study, we aimed to evaluate whether ctDNA analysis in patients with stage II-III breast cancer (n = 20) could serve as a surrogate for invasive biopsies in molecular profiling and as a tool for monitoring response to NST. At baseline, ctDNA was detectable in the majority of patients by droplet digital (dd)PCR (15/18, 83%) and all patients with longitudinal follow-up had ctDNA clearance after NST (13/13; 100%). A positive correlation was observed between the allele fraction in ctDNA, histologic grade and molecular subtype, suggesting that ctDNA levels may be influenced by tumor biology. None of the three patients with undetectable baseline ctDNA had distant relapse, regardless of whether they achieved pathologic complete response (pCR), compared to 5/15 (33%) with detectable baseline ctDNA. These findings suggest that ctDNA assessment at baseline may provide additional prognostic information to define the risk of patients after NST. While ctDNA shows promise in capturing tumor burden and biological characteristics, its role in predicting pCR and long-term outcomes requires further investigation.
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.