2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2022.100547
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Minimal residual disease in gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma: the search for the invisible

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

1
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The detection of ctDNA after nCRT seems to be hampered by lower shedding and possibly more background biological noise as we observed higher cfDNA concentrations in non-baseline samples. To accurately predict CR pre-surgery, ultra-sensitive techniques may be necessary or other methods of detection including sequencing for tumor methylation signatures [28][29][30][31]. Personalized tumor-informed assays could also help to boost sensitivity by providing high reliability and a reduction in the amount of targets that need to be sequenced [26].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The detection of ctDNA after nCRT seems to be hampered by lower shedding and possibly more background biological noise as we observed higher cfDNA concentrations in non-baseline samples. To accurately predict CR pre-surgery, ultra-sensitive techniques may be necessary or other methods of detection including sequencing for tumor methylation signatures [28][29][30][31]. Personalized tumor-informed assays could also help to boost sensitivity by providing high reliability and a reduction in the amount of targets that need to be sequenced [26].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To date, no comparative data are available on these two assays in terms of MRD detection sensitivity, but ongoing prospective trials will provide more information in this regard. 54 , 55 …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since the advent of blood-based circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), different efforts have been made in order to evaluate its use in GC [43]. Currently, there are two approaches for MRD assessment: a tumor-informed one that starts from the genomic sequencing of the primary tumor and a tumor-agnostic one that is uninformed by the mutations in the primary tumor [44]. Although more expensive than tumor-naïve tests, tumor-informed approaches are preferable as far as they are able to determine MRD with both high sensitivity and specificity, with the possible identification of tumor-specific variants with a very low variant allele frequency of 0.01%.…”
Section: Minimal Residual Diseasementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Differently, tumor-agnostic tests are less sensitive and able to detect tumor-specific variants for a VAF between 0.1 and 1%. On the whole, sequencing of multiple tumor regions increases the sensitivity of the test and the possibility to detect ctDNA variants [44]. However, the discrepancy between the primary tissue and ctDNA profile may be caused by cancer heterogeneity.…”
Section: Minimal Residual Diseasementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation