Mikail Gögenur1, Noor Al-Huda Hadi2, Camilla Qvortrup3,4, Claus Lindbjerg Andersen4,5,6, Ismail Gögenur2,4. 1. Center for Surgical Science, Zealand University Hospital Køge, Køge, Denmark. mgog@regsj.dk. 2. Center for Surgical Science, Zealand University Hospital Køge, Køge, Denmark. 3. Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. 4. Danish Colorectal Cancer Group, Copenhagen, Denmark. 5. Department of Molecular Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. 6. Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We wanted to investigate the association between circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) detection at baseline, during and after neoadjuvant treatment, after surgery, and recurrence, in patients with nonmetastatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we included studies that investigated patients undergoing neoadjuvant treatment for nonmetastatic cancer and provided recurrence indices stratified for ctDNA status at the following timepoints: baseline, during treatment, posttreatment, and postsurgery. Study quality was reported with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, REMARK checklist, and GRADE approach. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were our data sources (inception to 3 June 2021). The main outcome was risk of recurrence. RESULTS: We identified ten studies including 727 patients with rectal, breast, gastric, and bladder cancer. All studies reported posttreatment ctDNA analysis, while seven, four, and six reported baseline, during treatment, and postsurgery ctDNA analysis, respectively. ctDNA detection was associated to recurrence across all timepoints [baseline: risk ratio (RR) 2.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.33-6.14, during treatment: RR 3.81, 95% CI 2.09-6.92, posttreatment: RR 4.29, 95% CI 2.79-6.60, postsurgery: RR 8.03, 95% CI 3.16-20.43]. Heterogeneity was low to moderate. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis of observational studies found that ctDNA detection in patients undergoing neoadjuvant treatment for nonmetastatic cancer was associated with recurrence. A stronger association was evident in posttreatment and postsurgery timepoints. However, some studies reported low negative predictive value (NPV) of pathological complete response, showing that ctDNA-detection-guided escalation and de-escalation studies following neoadjuvant treatment regimens are needed before its role as a treatment guidance can be affirmed.
BACKGROUND: We wanted to investigate the association between circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) detection at baseline, during and after neoadjuvant treatment, after surgery, and recurrence, in patients with nonmetastatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we included studies that investigated patients undergoing neoadjuvant treatment for nonmetastatic cancer and provided recurrence indices stratified for ctDNA status at the following timepoints: baseline, during treatment, posttreatment, and postsurgery. Study quality was reported with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, REMARK checklist, and GRADE approach. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were our data sources (inception to 3 June 2021). The main outcome was risk of recurrence. RESULTS: We identified ten studies including 727 patients with rectal, breast, gastric, and bladder cancer. All studies reported posttreatment ctDNA analysis, while seven, four, and six reported baseline, during treatment, and postsurgery ctDNA analysis, respectively. ctDNA detection was associated to recurrence across all timepoints [baseline: risk ratio (RR) 2.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.33-6.14, during treatment: RR 3.81, 95% CI 2.09-6.92, posttreatment: RR 4.29, 95% CI 2.79-6.60, postsurgery: RR 8.03, 95% CI 3.16-20.43]. Heterogeneity was low to moderate. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis of observational studies found that ctDNA detection in patients undergoing neoadjuvant treatment for nonmetastatic cancer was associated with recurrence. A stronger association was evident in posttreatment and postsurgery timepoints. However, some studies reported low negative predictive value (NPV) of pathological complete response, showing that ctDNA-detection-guided escalation and de-escalation studies following neoadjuvant treatment regimens are needed before its role as a treatment guidance can be affirmed.
Authors: E Kapiteijn; C A Marijnen; I D Nagtegaal; H Putter; W H Steup; T Wiggers; H J Rutten; L Pahlman; B Glimelius; J H van Krieken; J W Leer; C J van de Velde Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-08-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: P van Hagen; M C C M Hulshof; J J B van Lanschot; E W Steyerberg; M I van Berge Henegouwen; B P L Wijnhoven; D J Richel; G A P Nieuwenhuijzen; G A P Hospers; J J Bonenkamp; M A Cuesta; R J B Blaisse; O R C Busch; F J W ten Kate; G-J Creemers; C J A Punt; J T M Plukker; H M W Verheul; E J Spillenaar Bilgen; H van Dekken; M J C van der Sangen; T Rozema; K Biermann; J C Beukema; A H M Piet; C M van Rij; J G Reinders; H W Tilanus; A van der Gaast Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-05-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Renu R Bahadoer; Esmée A Dijkstra; Boudewijn van Etten; Corrie A M Marijnen; Hein Putter; Elma Meershoek-Klein Kranenbarg; Annet G H Roodvoets; Iris D Nagtegaal; Regina G H Beets-Tan; Lennart K Blomqvist; Tone Fokstuen; Albert J Ten Tije; Jaume Capdevila; Mathijs P Hendriks; Ibrahim Edhemovic; Andrés Cervantes; Per J Nilsson; Bengt Glimelius; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Geke A P Hospers Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2020-12-07 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: H Barton Grossman; Ronald B Natale; Catherine M Tangen; V O Speights; Nicholas J Vogelzang; Donald L Trump; Ralph W deVere White; Michael F Sarosdy; David P Wood; Derek Raghavan; E David Crawford Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-08-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Fahima Dossa; Sergio A Acuna; Aaron S Rickles; Mariana Berho; Steven D Wexner; Fayez A Quereshy; Nancy N Baxter; Sami A Chadi Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2018-07-01 Impact factor: 31.777