SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article
Front. Oncol.
Sec. Gastrointestinal Cancers: Gastric and Esophageal Cancers
Volume 15 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fonc.2025.1608872
Circulating tumor DNA predicts prognosis at different time points in patients with esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Provisionally accepted
- First People's Hospital of Yibin, Sichuan, China
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Background: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), as a liquid biopsy biomarker, is undergoing extensive evaluation for its clinical utility across multiple tumor management scenarios. This study aimed to assess the prognostic value of ctDNA in esophageal cancer (EC) patients at different treatment time points through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Materials and methods:A comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from construction to October 2024 was conducted, and studies investigating the association between ctDNA and progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in EC patients were screened for inclusion. Primary outcomes included PFS/OS by ctDNA status at different time points (baseline, after neoadjuvant therapy, and during follow-up). Risk ratios (HRs) for PFS/OS with positive ctDNA tests at various time points were combined, and subgroup analyses were conducted for tumor-informed and non-tumor-informed testing of ctDNA. Results:A total of 22 studies involving 1519 patients were finally included in this meta-analysis. In univariate analyses, detection of ctDNA was associated with poorer PFS at baseline (HR=1.64, 95% CI:1.30-2.07), after neoadjuvant therapy (HR=3.97, 95% CI: 2.68-5.88) and during follow-up (HR=5.42, 95% CI:3.97-7.38). Similarly, detection of ctDNA at all time points was associated with poorer OS (at baseline: HR=2.02, 95% CI:1.36-2.99; after neoadjuvant therapy: HR=3.41, 95% CI: 2.08-5.59; and during follow-up: HR=4.93, 95% CI:3.31-7.34). Similar PFS and OS outcomes were observed in multivariate analyses. The uni-and multivariate combined HRs for PFS/OS with ctDNA detected at different time points were numerically related as: baseline < after neoadjuvant therapy < during follow-up(PFS:1.90→4.07→5.22; OS:2.39→3.15→5.37). When ctDNA was detected in combined tumor-informed assays at baseline and after neoadjuvant therapy, most HRs for recurrence and mortality risk showed a trend toward higher values compared with non-tumor-informed assays. ctDNA test positivity predicted clinical recurrence an average of 4.53 months earlier (range: 0.98-11.6 months) than conventional radiological imaging techniques. This is a provisional file, not the final typeset article Conclusions: Positive ctDNA testing was associated with poorer prognosis throughout the treatment period of EC patients, and the prognostic value of monitoring ctDNA status increased with time from baseline to follow-up.
Keywords: esophageal cancer, liquid biopsy, circulating tumor DNA, prognostic biomarker, systematic review and meta-analysis, tumor-informed assay
Received: 09 Apr 2025; Accepted: 08 Sep 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Wang, Xiong, Wang, Qiu, Hou and Gao. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Peng Gao, First People's Hospital of Yibin, Sichuan, China
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.