Utility and Clinical Application of Circulating Tumor DNA (ctDNA) in Advanced Prostate Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The treatment landscape for metastatic prostate cancer has undergone significant changes in recent years. The availability of next-generation imaging techniques and the emergence of novel therapies have led to earlier and more aggressive treatment approaches for patients. However, despite these advancements, drug resistance and progression to castration-resistant disease remain inevitable. Understanding the molecular landscape of advanced prostate cancer lies at the forefront of being able to deliver personalized therapies and more robustly risk-stratify patients, when combined with clinical factors. Advanced prostate cancer is characterized by inter- and intratumoral heterogeneity, posing challenges in comprehensively analyzing the genomic tumor profile using a solitary tissue sample. Additionally, the disease often manifests as bone-predominant metastatic tumors, making biopsies impractical in many cases. Moreover, archival tissue samples from a prostatectomy specimen may not accurately represent the current state of the tumor. To overcome these limitations, liquid biopsies using plasma samples have emerged as a minimally invasive surrogate approach to obtain real-time information on the genomic tumor profile. Growing evidence confirms the excellent concordance of liquid biopsies with tissue samples, making them an attractive alternative to traditional tissue biopsies. These assays can provide predictive and prognostic information that may enhance patient discussions and influence treatment decisions. This review focuses on the evolution and utility of circulating tumor-derived DNA (ctDNA) liquid biopsy assays in metastatic prostate cancer.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".