Prognostic value of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) for recurrence detection across solid tumors: A real-world meta-analysis.

S Scott Kopetz (University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston) G George Laliotis M Maen Abdelrahim (Houston Methodist Neal Cancer Center, Houston, TX) M Midhun Malla R Richard D. Kim (Moffitt Cancer Center Magnolia Campus, Tampa, FL) R Robert C. G. Martin (The Hiram C. Polk, Jr., MD, Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, KY) A Arnab Basu (Division of Hematology and Oncology, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL) A Aditya Bardia L Luke D. Jacobsen (Natera, Inc., Austin, TX) S Shruti Sharma M Michael Toboni (Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL) G Gary Schwartz (Mayo, Rochester, Minnesota, United States) Z Zeynep Eroglu S Samuel J. Klempner (Mass General Brigham Cancer Institute, Boston) G Gregory P. Botta (Division of Hematology Oncology, Department of Medicine, UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center, La Jolla, CA) M Marla Lipsyc-Sharf (University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA) A Adham A. Jurdi (Natera, Inc., Austin, TX) M Minetta C. Liu A Alexey Aleshin (Natera, Inc., Austin, TX) M Matthew D. Galsky (Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai)

Abstract

11177 Background: Early detection of recurrence after curative-intent treatment is a critical priority, traditional imaging often detects relapse when disease burden is high, potentially limiting treatment efficacy. ctDNA has emerged as an established prognostic biomarker for molecular residual disease (MRD) detection and early relapse. We performed a real-world meta-analysis on published datasets that utilized personalized, tumor-informed ctDNA testing to assess its performance across tumor types and clinical management approaches. Methods: Real-world studies published from December 2022 to December 2025 using the personalized, tumor-informed Signatera ctDNA assay (Natera, Inc.) were included. Eligibility required ctDNA assessment in the MRD (2–16 weeks post-surgery (histology dependent)/pre adjuvant therapy (ACT)) and/or surveillance (post-ACT/end of the MRD window if no ACT was given) settings, with outcomes stratified by ctDNA status and hazard ratios (HR) reported from univariable or time-dependent Cox regression analysis. Exclusions included: clinical trials, biobanks, metastatic disease treated with palliative intent, case reports, reviews, editorials, or commentaries. Clinical outcomes were harmonized into a composite event-free survival (EFS) endpoint (time to recurrence, progression, or death). Pooled HRs and 95% CIs were estimated using random and fixed effects models and heterogeneity between studies was assessed using the I 2 and Cochran’s Q test. Median lead time from ctDNA-positivity to radiographic or clinical recurrence was summarized when available. Results: We identified 18 eligible publications comprising 3,004 unique patients across 15 solid tumor types. During the MRD window, ctDNA positivity was associated with a significantly increased risk of an EFS event compared with ctDNA negativity (pooled HR: 8.15; 95% CI: 6.12–10.85, I 2 = 0.00%, P = 0.844, n = 13). During the surveillance window, inclusive of post-definitive treatment, ctDNA positivity conferred an even greater EFS risk (pooled HR: 18.30; 95% CI: 14.17–23.65, I 2 = 0%, P = 0.911 for heterogeneity, n = 16). Across studies, ctDNA detection during surveillance preceded radiographic or clinical recurrence by a median of 3.20 months (95% CI: 2.50-4.10, P < 0.0001, n = 10), although this varied substantially by study/tumor type (I 2 = 80.9%). Conclusions: In this pan-cancer real-world meta-analysis, ctDNA positivity assessed using a tumor-informed assay was highly prognostic following curative-intent therapy at all timepoints evaluated with low heterogeneity between studies. These findings support the broad clinical utility of tumor-informed ctDNA testing for post-treatment risk stratification and longitudinal disease monitoring across solid tumors.

Article Details

Volume / Issue Vol. 44, Issue 16_suppl
Published June 01, 2026
Pages 11177-11177
ISSN 0732-183X
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Journal Info

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

ISSN: 0732-183X Health Sciences

Authors (20)

S

Scott Kopetz

University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston

G

George Laliotis

M

Maen Abdelrahim

Houston Methodist Neal Cancer Center, Houston, TX

M

Midhun Malla

R

Richard D. Kim

Moffitt Cancer Center Magnolia Campus, Tampa, FL

R

Robert C. G. Martin

The Hiram C. Polk, Jr., MD, Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, KY

A

Arnab Basu

Division of Hematology and Oncology, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL

A

Aditya Bardia

L

Luke D. Jacobsen

Natera, Inc., Austin, TX

S

Shruti Sharma

M

Michael Toboni

Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL

G

Gary Schwartz

Mayo, Rochester, Minnesota, United States

Z

Zeynep Eroglu

S

Samuel J. Klempner

Mass General Brigham Cancer Institute, Boston

G

Gregory P. Botta

Division of Hematology Oncology, Department of Medicine, UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center, La Jolla, CA

M

Marla Lipsyc-Sharf

University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA

A

Adham A. Jurdi

Natera, Inc., Austin, TX

M

Minetta C. Liu

A

Alexey Aleshin

Natera, Inc., Austin, TX

M

Matthew D. Galsky

Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai