Real-world Monitoring of ctDNA Reliably Predicts Cancer Recurrence and Treatment Efficacy in Patients with Resected Stages I-III Colon Cancer

Le résumé fourni par la source

OBJECTIVE: In this study, we evaluate the utility of ctDNA analysis in a large cohort of patients for whom ctDNA testing was ordered commercially with real-world application. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has emerged as a prognostic and predictive biomarker for assessing post-surgical molecular residual disease (MRD) and response to treatment. METHODS: A real-world data analysis was performed using commercial ctDNA testing (SignateraTM) from patients (N=795, n=5,971 plasma samples) with stage I-III colon cancer treated at multiple US institutions. The association of ctDNA detection within the MRD window, during surveillance, and the impact of ACT was correlated with patient outcomes. RESULTS: ctDNA-positive patients during the MRD window and surveillance showed significantly shorter DFS compared to ctDNA-negative patients (hazard ratio (HR): 9.85, P<0.0001; HR: 26.91, P<0.0001). Multivariate analysis of the MRD window revealed ctDNA-positivity as the most significant factor associated with inferior DFS (adjHR: 7.7, P<0.001). MRD-positive patients who received ACT showed improved DFS compared to patients observed post-surgery (adjHR: 6.1, FDR adj P=0.0007). No ACT benefit was observed in MRD-negative patients (adj HR: 1.20, FDR adj P=0.768). On evaluating ctDNA dynamics from MRD to surveillance, patients who remained ctDNA-positive or converted from negative to positive showed a significantly inferior DFS (HR: 34.40, P<0.0001; HR: 13.65, P<0.0001) compared to persistently ctDNA-negative patients. CONCLUSIONS: Postsurgical ctDNA detection is prognostic of relapse and potentially predictive of ACT benefit in patients with resectable colon cancer, which may enable personalized surveillance, intervention, and/or trial options, ultimately improving patient outcomes.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.