ArticleClinical Medicine Insights. Oncology2026
Clinical Utility of Circulating Tumor DNA Analysis in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.
Article in Clinical Medicine Insights. Oncology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a highly aggressive malignancy with poor prognosis and limited early detection strategies. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) offers a noninvasive method for tumor monitoring and prognostic prediction. We aimed to evaluate the clinical utility of ctDNA in PDAC, focusing on stage-dependent variations in ctDNA detection rate and its association with survival. Methods: The study included 35 patients with PDAC. Plasma and tissue samples were evaluated with next-generation sequencing to detect ctDNA and assess the concordance of mutations detected in ctDNA with those detected in tissue samples. The rates of ctDNA positivity and partial concordance were evaluated across disease stages. Demographics, clinicopathologic characteristics including neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and surgical outcomes were also evaluated. Results: Among the study population, 91.4% received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and ctDNA was detected in 57.1% of the patients. KRAS mutations in ctDNA were identified in 11.4% of the patients, ranging from 0.0% in stage I PDAC to 28.6% in stage IV PDAC. The partial concordance rate between ctDNA and tumor tissue mutations increased from 0.0% in stage I to 66.7% in stage IV. Although the difference was not statistically significant, the two-year survival tended to be worse in patients with detectable ctDNA than in those without ctDNA (44.0% vs. 86.2%, p = 0.071). Conclusions: Our analysis demonstrates the potential clinical relevance of ctDNA analysis in patients with PDAC, especially those with advanced disease. However, its limited sensitivity in the detection of early-stage PDAC highlights the need for methodologic improvements. Our findings support the potential integration of ctDNA analysis into clinical workflows as a biomarker for disease monitoring and prognosis.
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.