MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416998993 · doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2025.5144

Predictive Role of Circulating Tumor DNA in Stage III Colon Cancer Treated With Celecoxib

2025· article· en· W4416998993 on OpenAlexaff
George Q. Zhang, Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt, Qian Shi, Tyler S. Twombly, Levi Pederson, Chao Ma, Juha P. Väyrynen, Melissa Zhao, Yasutoshi Takashima, Ardaman Shergill, Pankaj Kumar, Philip Kuebler, Smitha Krishnamurthi, Benjamin Kye Jyn Tan, Eileen M. O’Reilly, Marios Giannakis, Shuji Ogino, Adham Jurdi, Shruti Sharma, Alexey Aleshin, Anthony F. Shields, Jonathan A. Nowak

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsHôtel-Dieu de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCirculating tumor DNAColorectal cancerCelecoxibCirculating tumor cellStage (stratigraphy)Cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Observational studies have associated use of aspirin and selective cyclooxygenase inhibitors with decreased recurrence and improved survival in patients with colon cancer. While randomized clinical trials have not shown benefit across all patients, these findings suggest that select subgroups may benefit from their use. Despite the well-established prognostic value of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), its role in guiding treatment remains unclear. Objective: To investigate the predictive value of postoperative ctDNA for survival outcomes with adjuvant celecoxib alongside conventional chemotherapy in patients with stage III colon cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a post hoc analysis of the phase 3 Cancer and Leukemia Group B (now Alliance)/Southwest Oncology Group 80702 randomized clinical trial (2010-2015) assessing adjuvant celecoxib vs placebo and 3 vs 6 months of adjuvant 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin for stage III colon cancer. Patients consented to biospecimen collection and had ctDNA analysis performed. Data analysis was performed from September 2024 to June 2025. Exposures: Postoperative ctDNA positivity was determined using a clinically validated, tumor-informed 16-plex-polymerase chain reaction-next-generation sequencing assay (Signatera; Natera Inc) performed between surgery and initiation of adjuvant therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Survival by ctDNA status and adjuvant celecoxib use were assessed as part of a post hoc companion study with prespecified statistical analysis plan. Results: Among 940 patients (mean [SD] age, 60.9 [10.8] years; 426 female [45.3%] and 515 male [54.7%] individuals; 222 [23.6%] with prior low-dose aspirin use; and median follow-up of 6.0 [95% CI, 6.0-6.0] years), 767 (81.6%) were ctDNA negative and 173 (18.4%) were ctDNA positive. ctDNA positivity was highly prognostic of worse DFS (reference, ctDNA negativity; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 6.12; 95% CI, 4.66-8.03) and OS (aHR, 5.86; 95% CI, 4.19-8.19). In patients with ctDNA positivity, celecoxib was associated with improved DFS (aHR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.42-0.89) and OS (aHR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.40-0.96) compared to placebo. Among patients with ctDNA negativity, celecoxib did not provide survival benefit (DFS: aHR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.53-1.09; OS: aHR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.54-1.36), although the interaction was not significant (P for interaction, .41 and .33 for DFS and OS, respectively). These findings persisted when stratifying patients by microsatellite instability status and PIK3CA mutational status. Conclusion and Relevance: The findings of this post hoc analysis suggest that ctDNA status has the potential to inform clinical decision-making among patients with stage III colon cancer who should consider adjuvant celecoxib in addition to conventional chemotherapy. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01150045.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.446

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA OncologySame topicCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207