Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41501499›Full record

ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2026

Harnessing early postoperative MRD and VAF dynamics for precision prognosis in resected colorectal liver metastases.

Peisi Li, Tuoyang Li, Mingzhe Huang, Yiting Liu, Peiji Liu, Yuanhui Wu, Xuan Li, Rongzhao He, Yingguo Gan, Yisong Hong and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical 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.

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

13 authors.

Peisi Li *Department of General Surgery (Colorectal Surgery), The Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, 26 Yuancun Erheng Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Tuoyang Li *Department of General Surgery (Colorectal Surgery), The Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, 26 Yuancun Erheng Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Mingzhe Huang *Department of General Surgery (Colorectal Surgery), The Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, 26 Yuancun Erheng Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8103-9382
Yiting Liu *Guangdong Institute of Gastroenterology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Peiji Liu *Department of General Surgery (Colorectal Surgery), The Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, 26 Yuancun Erheng Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Yuanhui WuDepartment of General Surgery (Colorectal Surgery), The Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, 26 Yuancun Erheng Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Xuan LiDepartment of General Surgery (Colorectal Surgery), The Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, 26 Yuancun Erheng Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Rongzhao HeDepartment of General Surgery (Colorectal Surgery), The Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, 26 Yuancun Erheng Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Yingguo GanDepartment of General Surgery (Colorectal Surgery), The Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, 26 Yuancun Erheng Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Yisong HongDepartment of General Surgery (Colorectal Surgery), The Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, 26 Yuancun Erheng Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Puning WangDepartment of General Surgery (Colorectal Surgery), The Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, 26 Yuancun Erheng Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. wangpn3@mail.sysu.edu.cn.
Jinxin LinDepartment of General Surgery (Colorectal Surgery), The Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, 26 Yuancun Erheng Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. linjx69@mail.sysu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2089-7084
Meijin HuangDepartment of General Surgery (Colorectal Surgery), The Sixth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, 26 Yuancun Erheng Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. hmjin@mail.sysu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5483-4591

Funding

Excellent Talent Training Project of the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University No. R2021217202512965, YLFundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, Sun Yat-sen University 2022007, MHFundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, Sun Yat-sen University No. 23ykbj007, HYMedical Scientific Research Foundation of Guangdong Province A2023094, JLNational Natural Science Foundation of China No. 82372715, YL; No. 81972245, YL; No. 82173067, YL; No. 82272965, HYNatural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province No. 2022A1515012656, HYScience and Technology Program of Guangzhou 202201011004, HY; 2023A04J1817, JLScientific Research Project of the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University 2022JBGS07Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University Clinical Research - '1010' Program 1010CG(2022)-02, MH; 1010CG(2022)-03, YL;Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University Clinical Research - '1010' Program 1010PY(2022)-10, JLTalent Project of the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University No. P20150227202010251, YL
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCirculating tumor DNA (ctDNA) shows promise for predicting recurrence in colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLM) patients. We investigated the prognostic value of perioperative ctDNA, particularly 2 week postoperative minimal residual disease (MRD), in CRLM patients undergoing liver resection.

methodsWe prospectively collected blood samples from 94 CRLM patients before (after neoadjuvant therapy, if any) and 2 weeks after liver metastasectomy. 63 patients had both assessments. ctDNA status and variant allele fraction (VAF) were determined using targeted sequencing. Disease-free survival (DFS) was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression. Baseline characteristics were compared based on ctDNA status.

resultsPreoperative ctDNA status was not associated with DFS (p = 0.77). However, postoperative 2 week MRD status was a strong predictor; MRD-positive patients (N = 31) had significantly worse DFS than MRD-negative patients (N = 32) (p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, postoperative MRD positivity (HR = 5.52, 95% CI: 2.46-12.39, p < 0.001) and multiple metastases (HR = 3.42, 95% CI: 1.42-8.25, p = 0.006) were independent predictors of DFS. Postoperative MRD positivity showed a trend towards association with higher primary tumor T stage (p = 0.095). Among MRD-negative patients, a higher maximum absolute VAF change (MaxΔVAF) suggested potentially worse DFS (p = 0.053), while it held no prognostic value in MRD-positive patients (p = 0.99).

conclusionsPostoperative 2 week ctDNA (MRD) status is a potent, independent predictor of DFS in resected CRLM patients and outperforms preoperative ctDNA. Early MRD assessment should be considered for risk stratification and may help guide adjuvant treatment decisions. VAF dynamics might further refine prognosis, especially in MRD-negative cases.

Indexed as

Circulating Tumor DNAColorectal NeoplasmsLiver NeoplasmsAdultAgedBiomarkers, TumorDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHepatectomyHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm, ResidualPostoperative PeriodPrognosisProspective StudiesBiomarkers, TumorCirculating Tumor DNACirculating tumor DNAColorectal cancer liver metastasesHepatectomyMinimal residual diseaseVariant allele fraction

Identifiers

PMID41501499
PMCPMC12779790

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.