Peritoneal Tumor DNA as a Prognostic Biomarker in Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: Gastric cancers commonly spread to the peritoneum. Its presence significantly alters patient prognosis and treatment-intent; however, current methods of peritoneal staging are inaccurate. Peritoneal tumor DNA (ptDNA) is tumor-derived DNA detectable in peritoneal lavage fluid. ptDNA positivity may indicate peritoneal micrometastasis and may be more sensitive than cytology in staging the peritoneum. In this meta-analysis, we evaluated the prognostic potential of ptDNA in gastric cancer. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched using PRISMA guidelines. Studies published between January 1, 1990, and April 30, 2023, containing quantitative data relating to ptDNA in gastric cancer were meta-analyzed. RESULTS: Six studies were analyzed. Of the total 757 patients with gastric adenocarcinoma, 318 (42.0%) were stage I, 311 (41.0%) were stage II/III, 116 (15.3%) were stage IV, and 22 (2.9%) were undetermined. Overall, ptDNA detected cytology-positive cases with a sensitivity and specificity of 85.2% (95% CI, 66.5 to 100.0) and 91.5% (95% CI, 86.5 to 96.6), respectively. Additionally, ptDNA was detected in 54 (8.5%) of 634 cytology-negative patients. The presence of ptDNA negatively correlated with pathological stage I (relative risk [RR], 0.29 [95% CI, 0.13 to 0.66]) and positively correlated with pathological stage IV (RR, 8.61 [95% CI, 1.86 to 39.89]) disease. Importantly, ptDNA positivity predicted an increased risk of peritoneal-specific metastasis (RR, 13.81 [95% CI, 8.11 to 23.53]) and reduced 3-year progression-free (RR, 5.37 [95% CI, 1.39 to 20.74]) and overall (hazard ratio, 4.13 [95% CI, 1.51 to 11.32]) survival. CONCLUSION: ptDNA carries valuable prognostic information and can detect peritoneal micrometastases in patients with gastric cancer. Its clinical utility in peritoneal staging for gastric cancer deserves further investigation.

A Practical Approach to Interpreting Circulating Tumor DNA in the Management of Gastrointestinal Cancers.

BACKGROUND: There is accumulating evidence supporting the clinical use of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in solid tumors, especially in different types of gastrointestinal cancer. As such, appraisal of the current and potential clinical utility of ctDNA is needed to guide clinicians in decision-making to facilitate its general applicability. CONTENT: In this review, we firstly discuss considerations surrounding specimen collection, processing, storage, and analysis, which affect reporting and interpretation of results. Secondly, we evaluate a selection of studies on colorectal, esophago-gastric, and pancreatic cancer to determine the level of evidence for the use of ctDNA in disease screening, detection of molecular residual disease (MRD) and disease recurrence during surveillance, assessment of therapy response, and guiding targeted therapy. Lastly, we highlight current limitations in the clinical utility of ctDNA and future directions. SUMMARY: Current evidence of ctDNA in gastrointestinal cancer is promising but varies depending on its specific clinical role and cancer type. Larger prospective trials are needed to validate different aspects of ctDNA clinical utility, and standardization of collection protocols, analytical assays, and reporting guidelines should be considered to facilitate its wider applicability.

Stage-based Variation in the Effect of Primary Tumor Side on All Stages of Colorectal Cancer Recurrence and Survival.

BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have defined the prognostic and potential predictive significance of the primary tumor side in metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). However, the currently available data for early-stage disease are limited and inconsistent. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We explored the clinicopathologic, treatment, and outcome data from a multisite Australian CRC registry from 2003 to 2016. Tumors at and distal to the splenic flexure were considered a left primary (LP). RESULTS: For the 6547 patients identified, the median age at diagnosis was 69 years, 55% were men, and most (63%) had a LP. Comparing the outcomes for right primary (RP) versus LP, time-to-recurrence was similar for stage I and III disease, but longer for those with a stage II RP (hazard ratio [HR], 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52-0.90; P < .01). Adjuvant chemotherapy provided a consistent benefit in stage III disease, regardless of the tumor side. Overall survival (OS) was similar for those with stage I and II disease between LP and RP patients; however, those with stage III RP disease had poorer OS (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.04-1.62; P < .05) and cancer-specific survival (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.19-2.03; P < .01). Patients with stage IV RP, whether de novo metastatic (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.95-1.39) or relapsed post-early-stage disease (HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.11-1.65; P < .01), had poorer OS. CONCLUSION: In early-stage CRC, the association of tumor side and effect on the time-to-recurrence and OS varies by stage. In stage III patients with an RP, poorer OS and cancer-specific survival outcomes are, in part, driven by inferior survival after recurrence, and tumor side did not influence adjuvant chemotherapy benefit.