Cargando…

Additional considerations before using a ctDNA-guided approach for informing adjuvant chemotherapy in colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND: The DYNAMIC trial investigated the use of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) to guide adjuvant treatment decisions in stage II colon cancer. Despite the DYNAMIC trial’s assertion that a ctDNA-guided approach could minimize the use of adjuvant treatment without compromising recurrence-free sur...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Olivier, Timothée, Haslam, Alyson, Prasad, Vinay
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10485976/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37679732
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-023-03037-9
_version_ 1785102901701509120
author Olivier, Timothée
Haslam, Alyson
Prasad, Vinay
author_facet Olivier, Timothée
Haslam, Alyson
Prasad, Vinay
author_sort Olivier, Timothée
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The DYNAMIC trial investigated the use of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) to guide adjuvant treatment decisions in stage II colon cancer. Despite the DYNAMIC trial’s assertion that a ctDNA-guided approach could minimize the use of adjuvant treatment without compromising recurrence-free survival (RFS), we raised concerns regarding the trial’s methodology and the practical implications of its findings in a Debate article. Here, we expand upon these concerns in a response to a correspondence by the authors of the DYNAMIC trial. MAIN BODY: We dispute the choice of a large non-inferiority margin in the DYNAMIC trial, simply because an 8.5 percentage points decrease in recurrence-free survival could result in significant harm to patients. We challenge the authors’ comparisons of the DYNAMIC trial outcomes with observational studies. Such comparison is subject to selection bias and changes over time that limit their relevance. The prognostic role of ctDNA do not automatically imply that more treatment in patients with ctDNA positivity would improve outcomes, which we highlight. In real-world settings, we anticipate a potential rise in chemotherapy use due to clinicians utilizing ctDNA alongside existing clinicopathologic factors, rather than using ctDNA as an entire replacement. Lastly, a key concern in DYNAMIC was an 350% higher use of oxaliplatin in the ctDNA arm compared with standard management (9.5% versus 2.7%, respectively), which poses a risk for long-term neuropathy. CONCLUSION: We look forward improvements in patient selection in the adjuvant setting, but we maintain our reservations about the DYNAMIC trial and the real-life implementation of its results. As an alternative to exploring de-escalation strategies with large margins non-inferiority trials, we propose that superiority trials in stage II patients could be a more effective strategy.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10485976
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104859762023-09-09 Additional considerations before using a ctDNA-guided approach for informing adjuvant chemotherapy in colorectal cancer Olivier, Timothée Haslam, Alyson Prasad, Vinay BMC Med Correspondence BACKGROUND: The DYNAMIC trial investigated the use of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) to guide adjuvant treatment decisions in stage II colon cancer. Despite the DYNAMIC trial’s assertion that a ctDNA-guided approach could minimize the use of adjuvant treatment without compromising recurrence-free survival (RFS), we raised concerns regarding the trial’s methodology and the practical implications of its findings in a Debate article. Here, we expand upon these concerns in a response to a correspondence by the authors of the DYNAMIC trial. MAIN BODY: We dispute the choice of a large non-inferiority margin in the DYNAMIC trial, simply because an 8.5 percentage points decrease in recurrence-free survival could result in significant harm to patients. We challenge the authors’ comparisons of the DYNAMIC trial outcomes with observational studies. Such comparison is subject to selection bias and changes over time that limit their relevance. The prognostic role of ctDNA do not automatically imply that more treatment in patients with ctDNA positivity would improve outcomes, which we highlight. In real-world settings, we anticipate a potential rise in chemotherapy use due to clinicians utilizing ctDNA alongside existing clinicopathologic factors, rather than using ctDNA as an entire replacement. Lastly, a key concern in DYNAMIC was an 350% higher use of oxaliplatin in the ctDNA arm compared with standard management (9.5% versus 2.7%, respectively), which poses a risk for long-term neuropathy. CONCLUSION: We look forward improvements in patient selection in the adjuvant setting, but we maintain our reservations about the DYNAMIC trial and the real-life implementation of its results. As an alternative to exploring de-escalation strategies with large margins non-inferiority trials, we propose that superiority trials in stage II patients could be a more effective strategy. BioMed Central 2023-09-08 /pmc/articles/PMC10485976/ /pubmed/37679732 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-023-03037-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Correspondence
Olivier, Timothée
Haslam, Alyson
Prasad, Vinay
Additional considerations before using a ctDNA-guided approach for informing adjuvant chemotherapy in colorectal cancer
title Additional considerations before using a ctDNA-guided approach for informing adjuvant chemotherapy in colorectal cancer
title_full Additional considerations before using a ctDNA-guided approach for informing adjuvant chemotherapy in colorectal cancer
title_fullStr Additional considerations before using a ctDNA-guided approach for informing adjuvant chemotherapy in colorectal cancer
title_full_unstemmed Additional considerations before using a ctDNA-guided approach for informing adjuvant chemotherapy in colorectal cancer
title_short Additional considerations before using a ctDNA-guided approach for informing adjuvant chemotherapy in colorectal cancer
title_sort additional considerations before using a ctdna-guided approach for informing adjuvant chemotherapy in colorectal cancer
topic Correspondence
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10485976/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37679732
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-023-03037-9
work_keys_str_mv AT oliviertimothee additionalconsiderationsbeforeusingactdnaguidedapproachforinformingadjuvantchemotherapyincolorectalcancer
AT haslamalyson additionalconsiderationsbeforeusingactdnaguidedapproachforinformingadjuvantchemotherapyincolorectalcancer
AT prasadvinay additionalconsiderationsbeforeusingactdnaguidedapproachforinformingadjuvantchemotherapyincolorectalcancer