Confirmation of Recurrent Lung Cancer Following Resection Using Liquid Biopsy, a Proof-of-Concept Real-World Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Appropriate management requires timely and accurate confirmation of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) recurrence in patients who have had curative-intent surgical resection. We assessed the association between circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) identified using amplicon sequencing and evidence of recurrence on CT surveillance. A prospective cohort study of NSCLC patients with early-stage disease undergoing curative-intent resection was conducted. Surveillance was performed post-operatively at pre-defined intervals with both liquid biopsy and chest CT imaging. Amplicon panel next-generation sequencing was performed on DNA and RNA from tumor tissue and on plasma cell-free DNA for tumor-informed ctDNA detection. Resected tumors from 78 NSCLC patients were analyzed. Alterations were detected on the DNA assay for 65 tumors and only on the RNA assay for 4 tumors. Of the 65 patients with alterations detected on the tumor DNA assay, 29 completed post-operative liquid biopsy testing. Four of those 29 patients had evidence of recurrence on imaging, of whom two had biopsy confirmation of recurrence and detectable ctDNA at the 12-month follow-up. Molecular confirmation of NSCLC recurrence can be provided through amplicon sequencing of plasma cell-free DNA in cases with imaging evidence of recurrence. Invasive tissue diagnosis may be avoidable in patients with ctDNA confirmation of recurrence that is suspected based on imaging. Further study of ctDNA assessment technologies in the setting of suspected recurrence is necessary to inform post-operative lung cancer surveillance guidelines.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".