Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2025 Jan 22;25(1):115.
doi: 10.1186/s12885-025-13526-0.

Multiple time points for detecting circulating tumor DNA to monitor the response to neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer: a meta-analysis

Shuyi Niu #  1 , Tie Sun #  2 , Mozhi Wang  1 , Litong Yao  1 , Tianyi He  1 , Yusong Wang  1 , Hengjun Zhang  1 , Xiang Li  3 , Yingying Xu  4
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Multiple time points for detecting circulating tumor DNA to monitor the response to neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer: a meta-analysis

Shuyi Niu et al. BMC Cancer. .

Abstract

Background: Not all breast cancer (BC) patients can benefit from neoadjuvant therapy (NAT). A poor response may result in patients missing the best opportunity for treatment, ultimately leading to a poor prognosis. Thus, to identify an effective predictor that can assess and predict patient response at early time points, we focused on circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), which is a vital noninvasive liquid biopsy biomarker. We performed a meta-analysis to explore the predictive value of response by monitoring ctDNA at four time points of NAT using pathologic complete response (pCR) and residual cancer burden (RCB).

Methods: By searching Embase, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science until December 24, 2023, we selected studies concerning the relationship between ctDNA and response or prognosis. We analysed the results at the following various time points: baseline (T0), first cycle of NAT (T1), mid-treatment (MT), and end of NAT (EOT). pCR and RCB were used to evaluate the response as the primary endpoint. The secondary endpoint was to investigate the relationship between ctDNA and prognosis. Odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratios (HRs) were used as effect indicators.

Results: Thirteen reports from twelve studies were eligible for inclusion in this meta-analysis. The results demonstrated that ctDNA negativity was associated with pCR at T1 (OR = 0.34; 95% CI: 0.21-0.57), MT (OR = 0.35; 95% CI: 0.20-0.60), and EOT (OR = 0.38; 95% CI: 0.22-0.66). When RCB was used to evaluate responses, ctDNA negativity was associated with RCB-0/I at the MT (OR = 0.34; 95% CI: 0.21-0.55) and EOT (OR = 0.26; 95% CI: 0.15-0.46). Furthermore, ctDNA positivity at T1 predicted a worse prognosis for patients (HR = 2.73; 95% CI: 1.29-5.75). We also performed a subgroup analysis to more accurately assess the predictive value of ctDNA for triple-negative breast cancer.

Conclusions: Our meta-analysis suggested that the ctDNA status at the early stage of NAT can predict patient response, which provides evidence for adjusting personalized treatment strategies and improving patient survival.

Prospero registration number: CRD42024496465.

Keywords: Biomarkers; Breast cancer; Circulating tumor DNA; Neoadjuvant therapy; Prognosis; Response.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethical approval: Not applicable. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The PRISMA flowchart of the eligible studies
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Forest plot of the prediction of pCR based on ctDNA status at (A) T0, (B) T1, (C) MT and (D) EOT. ctDNA-, ctDNA-negative (or not detected); ctDNA+, ctDNA-positive (or detected); ctDNA, circulating tumor DNA; OR, odds ratio; SE, standard error; CI: confidence intervals
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Forest plot of the prediction of RCB-0/I based on ctDNA status at (A) T0, (B) T1, (C) MT and (D) EOT. ctDNA-, ctDNA-negative (or not detected); ctDNA+, ctDNA-positive (or detected); ctDNA, circulating tumor DNA; OR, odds ratio; SE, standard error; CI: confidence intervals
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Forest plot of the prediction of RFS based on ctDNA status at T1. *RFS in this analysis represents a composite endpoint encompassing RFS, EFS, and DRFS. ctDNA-, ctDNA-negative (or not detected); ctDNA+, ctDNA-positive (or detected); ctDNA, circulating tumor DNA; OR, odds ratio; SE, standard error; CI: confidence intervals
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global Cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71:209–49. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Vaidya JS, Massarut S, Vaidya HJ, Alexander EC, Richards T, Caris JA, et al. Rethinking neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. BMJ. 2018;360:j5913. - DOI - PubMed
    1. I-SPY2 Trial Consortium, Yee D, DeMichele AM, Yau C, Isaacs C, Symmans WF, et al. Association of event-free and distant recurrence-free Survival with Individual-Level Pathologic Complete response in Neoadjuvant Treatment of Stages 2 and 3 breast Cancer: three-year follow-up analysis for the I-SPY2 adaptively randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2020;6:1355–62. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Spring LM, Fell G, Arfe A, Sharma C, Greenup R, Reynolds KL, et al. Pathologic Complete Response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and impact on breast Cancer recurrence and survival: a Comprehensive Meta-analysis. Clin Cancer Res. 2020;26:2838–48. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M, Mehta K, Costantino JP, Wolmark N, et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet. 2014;384:164–72. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources