MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411017374 · doi:10.1016/j.esmoop.2025.105286

Comprehensive tumor-agnostic evaluation of genomic and epigenomic-based approaches for the identification of circulating tumor DNA in early-stage breast cancer

2025· article· en· W4411017374 on OpenAlexafffund
Mitchell J. Elliott, J. Kim, A. Dou, Jesús Fuentes‐Antrás, Eitan Amir, Michelle B. Nadler, Emily Van de Laar, Celeste Yu, Raouf El Cheikh, Antonio Silvestro, Lillian L. Siu, Philippe L. Bédard, Hal K. Berman, David W. Cescon

Bibliographic record

VenueESMO Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
FundersCanadian Cancer Society Research InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchEMD SeronoGenentechNational Cancer InstituteGilead SciencesServierSociedad Española de Oncología MédicaAstellas PharmaUniversity of TorontoCanadian Cancer SocietySeagenPTC TherapeuticsCelgeneConquer Cancer FoundationPrincess Margaret Cancer FoundationBreast Cancer Research FoundationSanofiGlaxoSmithKlinePfizerSymphogenAmerican Society of Clinical OncologyAstraZenecaEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbCanadian Association of Medical OncologistsSusan G. Komen for the CureAmgen
KeywordsEpigenomicsIdentification (biology)Breast cancerComputational biologyCancerStage (stratigraphy)DNA methylationgenomic DNABiologyOncologyDNAMedicineGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The detection of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) after curative-intent therapy, referred to as molecular/minimal residual disease (MRD), is prognostic of disease recurrence in early-stage breast cancer (EBC). Tumor-agnostic approaches that rely on mutation-based assessment in fixed panels of common cancer driver genes have shown limited utility for detecting MRD in EBC. Methylation-based MRD (mMRD) may overcome the limitations of genomic-based MRD (gMRD), though limited clinical validation is available. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To investigate this, we analyzed 290 longitudinally banked plasma samples from 95 participants diagnosed with early-stage estrogen receptor (ER)-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (ER-positive) and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy using a high-sensitivity genomic and epigenomic-based, tumor-agnostic ctDNA platform. RESULTS: The baseline (pre-chemotherapy) ctDNA detection (mMRD) rate was 72.5% (66/91) across all participants (ER-positive: 33/48, 69%; TNBC: 33/43, 77%). Baseline ctDNA detection (mMRD) was associated with a higher risk of recurrence [hazard ratio (HR) 9.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3-70.3, P = 0.03]. Detection of ctDNA (mMRD) in the post-operative and follow-up periods were prognostic of worse event-free survival (EFS) (HR 17.0, 95% CI 6.0-48.0, P < 0.0001) with 62.5% sensitivity and 100% specificity for recurrence (positive predictive value 100%). The median lead time from mMRD detection to clinical recurrence was 152 days (range 15-748 days). gMRD, derived from plasma-only panel-based next-generation sequencing, was evaluated in all matched time points; the prognostic value was limited by clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential, including pathogenic mutations in common cancer driver genes. Despite refinements in gMRD analysis, it remained inferior to mMRD. A combination of mMRD and gMRD did not outperform mMRD alone. CONCLUSION: These results support further development of tumor-agnostic mMRD assays for the detection of ctDNA and assessment of these assays to develop clinical utility in this setting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueESMO OpenSame topicCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207