ArticleScientific reports2026
Insights into ctDNA assessment to detect minimal residual disease (MRD) in localized colorectal cancer.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Detection of minimal residual disease (MRD) by circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis arises as a promising strategy for localized colorectal cancer (CRC) management. Here, we present a pilot, prospective, single-center experience on ctDNA-based MRD detection with long-term follow-up and detailed clinical data. Patients (n = 47) with high-risk stage II and III colorectal adenocarcinoma were included. Tissue was sequenced with Oncomine Comprehensive Plus assay. Plasma (4 weeks post-surgery) was sequenced with Avenio ctDNA Targeted Panel V2 assays. ctDNA positivity was defined according to different criteria for their evaluation as predictive biomarker. Follow-up plasma samples were sequenced for selected patients. Predictive values varied depending on ctDNA positivity criteria. Only blood findings rendered a sensitivity and specificity of 37.5% and 84.6%, respectively. The "tissue-based" criteria increased sensitivity and specificity to 50% and 97.4%, respectively. Low concordance between tissue and plasma was observed, up to 40% of patients presenting variants only in plasma. Lung and peritoneal relapses were undetected by ctDNA. Our data support evidence on the potential of ctDNA analyses to detect MRD in high-risk stage II and III CRC. Important limitations, mainly sensitivity values need to be addressed. Further analyses are needed in order to position this technique in the routine clinical practice.
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.