4.6 Review

ctDNA applications and integration in colorectal cancer: an NCI Colon and Rectal-Anal Task Forces whitepaper

Journal

NATURE REVIEWS CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 17, Issue 12, Pages 757-770

Publisher

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/s41571-020-0392-0

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NCATS NIH HHS [UL1 TR001863] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NCI NIH HHS [P30 CA016672, UG1 CA233324] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

An increasing number of studies are describing potential uses of circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) in the care of patients with colorectal cancer. Owing to this rapidly developing area of research, the Colon and Rectal-Anal Task Forces of the United States National Cancer Institute convened a panel of multidisciplinary experts to summarize current data on the utility of ctDNA in the management of colorectal cancer and to provide guidance in promoting the efficient development and integration of this technology into clinical care. The panel focused on four key areas in which ctDNA has the potential to change clinical practice, including the detection of minimal residual disease, the management of patients with rectal cancer, monitoring responses to therapy, and tracking clonal dynamics in response to targeted therapies and other systemic treatments. The panel also provides general guidelines with relevance for ctDNA-related research efforts, irrespective of indication. The analysis of ctDNA obtained from low-volume blood samples has the potential to transform the management of patients with colorectal cancer. Nevertheless, research priorities and minimum standards for sample collection and analysis in this area are currently missing. In this Position Paper, the NCI Colon and Rectal-Anal Task Forces provide a set of recommendations designed to address these challenges and accelerate the implementation of ctDNA in the management of patients with colorectal cancer.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available