Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42964788›Full record

ReviewThe Lancet regional health. Western Pacific2026

Consensus and controversy of liquid biopsy using circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) for molecular residual disease detection in colorectal cancer.

Alicia Yioli Lefas, Ian Chau

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Alicia Yioli LefasGastrointestinal Unit, Department of Medicine, Royal Marsden Hospital, London, Surrey, UK.
Ian ChauGastrointestinal Unit, Department of Medicine, Royal Marsden Hospital, London, Surrey, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) detection after curative-intent treatment is one of the strongest prognostic biomarkers in colorectal cancer (CRC), but its clinical utility remains incompletely established. Randomised trials have shown that ctDNA-informed management can reduce adjuvant chemotherapy exposure in selected stage II colon cancer, yet non-inferiority was not established in stage III disease, and cytotoxic escalation for ctDNA-positive molecular residual disease (MRD) has not improved recurrence-free survival. These mixed interventional results do not diminish the prognostic validity of ctDNA, but suggest that its clinical utility depends on four interacting considerations: the biological state represented by ctDNA positivity, the timing of testing and intervention, assay and sampling heterogeneity, and trial design. Serial ctDNA dynamics may provide additional biological and prognostic information, as sustained clearance, transient clearance, persistence, and re-emergence are unlikely to represent equivalent states of MRD. Western Pacific studies have led the field, including GALAXY and ALTAIR in Japan and Taiwan, DYNAMIC in Australia, FIND and CINTS-R in China, and CLAUDIA in Korea. However, regional implementation is constrained by uneven laboratory infrastructure, cost, regulatory access, and limited evidence from Southeast Asia and Pacific lower-resource settings. Outside clinical trials, ctDNA should refine prognosis rather than dictate omission, intensification, or initiation of treatment. Future trials should align assay performance, biological timing, and intervention mechanism, and use patient-centred endpoints capable of demonstrating that acting on ctDNA improves outcomes.

Indexed as

Circulating tumour DNAColorectal cancerctDNAMolecular residual diseaseOverall survival

Identifiers

PMID42964788
PMCPMC13721942

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.