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...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
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 |