MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

ctDNA-guided adjuvant chemotherapy escalation in stage III colon cancer: Primary analysis of the ctDNA-positive cohort from the randomized AGITG dynamic-III trial (intergroup study of AGITG and CCTG).

2025· article· en· W4410805121 on OpenAlexaff
Jeanne Tie, Yuxuan Wang, Jonathan M. Loree, Joshua D. Cohen, David Espinosa Espinosa, Rachel Wong, Timothy Price, Niall C. Tebbutt, Margaret Lee, Matthew Burge, S.J. Harris, Belinda Lee, James Lynam, Christopher J. O’Callaghan, Daniel Breadner, Chetan Bettegowda, Nickolas Papadopoulos, Kenneth W. Kinzler, Bert Vogelstein, Peter Gibbs

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilNational Institutes of HealthMarcus Foundation
KeywordsMedicineOncologyInternal medicineColorectal cancerCohortAdjuvantAdjuvant chemotherapyChemotherapyStage (stratigraphy)Randomized controlled trialCancerBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

3503 Background: Despite adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) a proportion of patients (pts) with stage III colon cancer (CC) will recur. Most at risk are those with detectable ctDNA, whereas those with undetectable ctDNA have a reduced recurrence risk. The DYNAMIC-III study explored the impact of ACT de-escalation or escalation as informed by post-surgery ctDNA results. Here, we report the primary analysis on the impact of treatment escalation in ctDNA-positive pts. Outcome data for treatment de-escalation in ctDNA-negative pts is immature. Methods: DYNAMIC-III is a multi-center, randomized, phase II/III trial. Eligible pts had resected stage III CC and were fit for ACT. Pts were randomly assigned 1:1 to ctDNA-informed or standard of care (SOC) management. Clinicians nominated the selected SOC ACT regimen prior to randomization. For ctDNA-informed management, a ctDNA-positive result at 5-6 weeks after surgery with a tumor-informed assay prompted an escalation ACT strategy (from single agent fluoropyrimidine [FP] to oxaliplatin-based doublet, from 3 months doublet to 6 months doublet or FOLFOXIRI [clinician choice], or from 6 months doublet to FOLFOXIRI). The primary efficacy endpoint for the ctDNA-positive cohort was 2-year RFS. The target sample size of 250 provided 80% power with 90% confidence to confirm superiority of ctDNA-informed treatment escalation compared to SOC with a HR of 0.746. Results: Of 961 eligible pts randomized between Oct 2017 and Apr 2023, 259 (27%) were ctDNA-positive. Of these, 113 (44%) had clinical low risk disease (non-N2 + non-T4). Median follow-up was 42.2 months (range 0.78 – 63.0). 115 (89%) of 129 ctDNA-informed pts received ACT escalation, with 65 (56%) receiving FOLFOXIRI. Of 130 SOC pts, 14 (11%) and 112 (86%) received single agent FP and oxaliplatin doublet, respectively. 2-year RFS for ctDNA-informed treatment escalation was 52% (90% CI: 44 - 59%) vs 61% (90% CI: 54 - 68%) for SOC (HR 1.11, 90% CI: 0.83 - 1.48; P = 0.6). The 3-year RFS for ctDNA-positive pts receiving FOLFOXIRI and FOLFOX/CAPOX was similar (47% vs 51%, HR 1.09, 90% CI 0.78 to 1.53; P = 0.7). In a pre-specified correlative analysis of all ctDNA positive pts, recurrence risk increased with ctDNA burden, with 3-year RFS of 78%, 63%, 36% and 22% for tumor-derived mutant molecules/mL quartiles < 0.06, 0.06 – 0.17, 0.18 – 1.31, and > 1.31, respectively (P < 0.01). Treatment-related hospitalisation was similar for escalated and SOC pts (OR 1.21, P = 0.58). Analysis of post-ACT ctDNA is underway. Conclusions: In this first randomised study of ctDNA-informed management in stage III CC, we confirm the prognostic significance of detectable ctDNA, with the novel finding of recurrence risk increasing markedly with ctDNA burden. Treatment escalation, including to FOLFOXIRI, did not improve RFS. Future studies in ctDNA positive pts should explore other escalation strategies. Clinical trial information: ACTRN12617001566325 .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.314
Threshold uncertainty score0.459

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.374 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207