Minimal residual disease in colorectal cancer. Tumor-informed versus tumor-agnostic approaches: unraveling the optimal strategy.

IF 56.7 1区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY Annals of Oncology Pub Date : 2024-12-13 DOI:10.1016/j.annonc.2024.12.006
B Martínez-Castedo, D G Camblor, J Martín-Arana, J A Carbonell-Asins, B García-Micó, V Gambardella, M Huerta, S Roselló, D Roda, F Gimeno-Valiente, A Cervantes, N Tarazona
{"title":"Minimal residual disease in colorectal cancer. Tumor-informed versus tumor-agnostic approaches: unraveling the optimal strategy.","authors":"B Martínez-Castedo, D G Camblor, J Martín-Arana, J A Carbonell-Asins, B García-Micó, V Gambardella, M Huerta, S Roselló, D Roda, F Gimeno-Valiente, A Cervantes, N Tarazona","doi":"10.1016/j.annonc.2024.12.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis has emerged as a minimally invasive tool for detecting minimal residual disease (MRD) in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. This enables dynamic risk stratification, earlier recurrence detection, and optimized post-surgical treatment. Two primary methodologies have been developed for ctDNA-based MRD detection: tumor-informed strategies, which identify tumor-specific mutations through initial tissue sequencing to guide ctDNA monitoring, and tumor-agnostic approaches, which utilize predefined panels to detect common cancer-associated genomic or epigenomic alterations directly from plasma without prior tissue analysis. The debate over which is superior in terms of sensitivity, specificity, cost-effectiveness, and clinical feasibility remains unresolved.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This review summarizes studies published up to November 2024, exploring the utility and performance of tumor-informed and tumor-agnostic approaches for ctDNA analysis in CRC. We evaluate the strengths and limitations of each methodology, focusing on sensitivity, specificity, and clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both strategies demonstrate clinical utility in postoperative risk stratification and guiding adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in CRC patients. Tumor-informed approaches generally exhibit superior sensitivity and specificity for recurrence prediction, attributed to their personalized tumor profile designs. However, these methods are limited by the need for prior tissue sequencing and higher associated costs. In contrast, tumor-agnostic approaches offer broader applicability due to their reliance on plasma-only analysis, although with relatively lower sensitivity. Technological advancements, including fragmentomics and multi-omic integrations, are expanding the capabilities of ctDNA-based MRD detection, enhancing the performance of both approaches.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While tumor-informed strategies currently offer higher precision in MRD detection, tumor-agnostic approaches are gaining traction due to their convenience and improving performance metrics. The integration of novel technologies in ongoing clinical trials may redefine the optimal approach for MRD detection in CRC, paving the way for more personalized and adaptive patient management strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":8000,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Oncology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":56.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annonc.2024.12.006","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis has emerged as a minimally invasive tool for detecting minimal residual disease (MRD) in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. This enables dynamic risk stratification, earlier recurrence detection, and optimized post-surgical treatment. Two primary methodologies have been developed for ctDNA-based MRD detection: tumor-informed strategies, which identify tumor-specific mutations through initial tissue sequencing to guide ctDNA monitoring, and tumor-agnostic approaches, which utilize predefined panels to detect common cancer-associated genomic or epigenomic alterations directly from plasma without prior tissue analysis. The debate over which is superior in terms of sensitivity, specificity, cost-effectiveness, and clinical feasibility remains unresolved.

Design: This review summarizes studies published up to November 2024, exploring the utility and performance of tumor-informed and tumor-agnostic approaches for ctDNA analysis in CRC. We evaluate the strengths and limitations of each methodology, focusing on sensitivity, specificity, and clinical outcomes.

Results: Both strategies demonstrate clinical utility in postoperative risk stratification and guiding adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in CRC patients. Tumor-informed approaches generally exhibit superior sensitivity and specificity for recurrence prediction, attributed to their personalized tumor profile designs. However, these methods are limited by the need for prior tissue sequencing and higher associated costs. In contrast, tumor-agnostic approaches offer broader applicability due to their reliance on plasma-only analysis, although with relatively lower sensitivity. Technological advancements, including fragmentomics and multi-omic integrations, are expanding the capabilities of ctDNA-based MRD detection, enhancing the performance of both approaches.

Conclusions: While tumor-informed strategies currently offer higher precision in MRD detection, tumor-agnostic approaches are gaining traction due to their convenience and improving performance metrics. The integration of novel technologies in ongoing clinical trials may redefine the optimal approach for MRD detection in CRC, paving the way for more personalized and adaptive patient management strategies.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
结直肠癌的最小残留病灶。肿瘤信息与肿瘤诊断方法:探索最佳策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of Oncology
Annals of Oncology 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
63.90
自引率
1.00%
发文量
3712
审稿时长
2-3 weeks
期刊介绍: Annals of Oncology, the official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology and the Japanese Society of Medical Oncology, offers rapid and efficient peer-reviewed publications on innovative cancer treatments and translational research in oncology and precision medicine. The journal primarily focuses on areas such as systemic anticancer therapy, with a specific emphasis on molecular targeted agents and new immune therapies. We also welcome randomized trials, including negative results, as well as top-level guidelines. Additionally, we encourage submissions in emerging fields that are crucial to personalized medicine, such as molecular pathology, bioinformatics, modern statistics, and biotechnologies. Manuscripts related to radiotherapy, surgery, and pediatrics will be considered if they demonstrate a clear interaction with any of the aforementioned fields or if they present groundbreaking findings. Our international editorial board comprises renowned experts who are leaders in their respective fields. Through Annals of Oncology, we strive to provide the most effective communication on the dynamic and ever-evolving global oncology landscape.
期刊最新文献
Tocilizumab and immune signatures for targeted management of cytokine release syndrome in immune checkpoint therapy. Response Letter to the Editor. Minimal residual disease in colorectal cancer. Tumor-informed versus tumor-agnostic approaches: unraveling the optimal strategy. Biomarker analyses from the phase 3 randomized CLEAR trial: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma. Genomic correlates of response and resistance to the irreversible FGFR1-4 inhibitor futibatinib based on biopsy and circulating tumor DNA profiling.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1