Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35440666›Full record

SynthesisBritish journal of cancer2022

Circulating tumour DNA and its clinical utility in predicting treatment response or survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Louise B Callesen, Julian Hamfjord, Anders K Boysen, Niels Pallisgaard, Tormod K Guren, Elin H Kure, Karen-Lise G Spindler

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in British journal of cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Association of ctDNAJournal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Onvansertib in Combination with FOLFIRI and Bevacizumab in Second-Line Treatment of KRAS-Mutant Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Phase Ib Clinical Study.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. BRAFAdvances in therapy · 2023
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Evolution ofCancers · 2022
    Article
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

7 authors.

Louise B Callesen *Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. loucal@rm.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2799-1492
Julian Hamfjord *Department of Oncology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Anders K BoysenDepartment of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Niels PallisgaardDepartment of Pathology, Zealand University Hospital, Roskilde, Denmark.
Tormod K GurenDepartment of Oncology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6471-2072
Elin H KureDepartment of Cancer Genetics, Institute for Cancer Research, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Karen-Lise G SpindlerDepartment of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8781-3212

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe investigate the current knowledge on circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) and its clinical utility in predicting outcomes in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

methodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. Last search 16/12/2020. We included studies on patients with mCRC reporting the predictive or prognostic value of ctDNA. We performed separate random-effects meta-analyses to investigate if baseline ctDNA and early changes in ctDNA levels during treatment were associated with survival. The risk of bias was assessed according to the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool.

resultsSeventy-one studies were included with 6930 patients. Twenty-four studies were included in meta-analyses. High baseline ctDNA level was associated with short progression-free survival (PFS) (HR = 2.2; 95% CI 1.8-2.8; n = 509) and overall survival (OS) (HR = 2.4; 95% CI 1.9-3.1; n = 1336). A small or no early decrease in ctDNA levels during treatment was associated with short PFS (HR = 3.0; 95% CI 2.2-4.2; n = 479) and OS (HR = 2.8; 95% CI 2.1-3.9; n = 583). Results on clonal evolution and lead-time were inconsistent. A majority of included studies (n = 50/71) had high risk of bias in at least one domain.

conclusionsPlasma ctDNA is a strong prognostic biomarker in mCRC. However, true clinical utility is lacking.

Indexed as

Circulating Tumor DNAColorectal NeoplasmsHumansPrognosisProgression-Free SurvivalCirculating Tumor DNA

Identifiers

PMID35440666
PMCPMC9345951

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.