Minimal residue disease detection in early-stage breast cancer: a review
- PMID: 39777588
- DOI: 10.1007/s11033-024-10198-0
Minimal residue disease detection in early-stage breast cancer: a review
Erratum in
-
Correction: Minimal residue disease detection in early-stage breast cancer: a review.Mol Biol Rep. 2025 Feb 11;52(1):219. doi: 10.1007/s11033-025-10295-8. Mol Biol Rep. 2025. PMID: 39934484 No abstract available.
Abstract
Over the past five years, circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing has emerged as a game-changer in cancer research, serving as a less invasive and highly sensitive method to monitor tumor dynamics. CtDNA testing has a wide range of potential applications in breast cancer (BC) management, including diagnosis, monitoring treatment responses, identifying resistance mutations, predicting prognosis, and detecting future relapses. In this review, we focus on the prognostic and predictive value of ctDNA testing for BC in both neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings. We also examine the rationale behind mainstream minimal residue disease (MRD) tracking methods and highlight key considerations for successful MRD testing. Clinical evidence has shown that ctDNA-based MRD testing can accurately detect molecular relapse 8-12 months before clinical relapse in early-stage BC. Compared to advanced-stage BC, detecting ctDNA in early-stage BC is more challenging and requires ultra-sensitive testing methods due to the low levels of ctDNA released into the bloodstream, particularly in post-surgical settings, after effective neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and in late adjuvant settings that require longer follow-up. Therefore, future efforts are needed to generate additional clinical evidence in these settings to support the clinical utility and widespread adoption of ctDNA-based MRD testing.
Keywords: Breast cancer; CtDNA; Minimal residue disease (MRD); Relapse.
© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.
Conflict of interest statement
Declarations. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.
References
-
- Ellsworth RE, Blackburn HL, Shriver CD et al (2017) Molecular heterogeneity in breast cancer: state of the science and implications for patient care. Semin Cell Dev Biol 64:65–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcdb.2016.08.025 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Gu T-Q, Xiao Y-L, Shao Z-M (2024) Intratumor heterogeneity in breast cancer: tracing its origins and translating findings into clinical practice. Precision Med Eng 1:100006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.preme.2024.100006 - DOI
-
- Pedersen RN, Esen BÖ, Mellemkjær L et al (2022) The incidence of breast cancer recurrence 10–32 years after primary diagnosis. J Natl Cancer Inst 114:391–399. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djab202 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Wallden B, Storhoff J, Nielsen T et al (2015) Development and verification of the PAM50-based Prosigna breast cancer gene signature assay. BMC Med Genom 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12920-015-0129-6
-
- Filipits M, Rudas M, Jakesz R et al (2011) A new molecular predictor of distant recurrence in ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer adds independent information to conventional clinical risk factors. Clin Cancer Res 17:6012–6020. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-0926 - DOI - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous
