Abstract 250P
Background
The evaluation of liquid biopsy-derived circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) as predictive biomarkers in early-stage pancreatic cancer therapy response is critical for advancing personalized treatment strategies. The analysis of ctDNA offers a non-invasive method for monitoring tumor dynamics and therapeutic response, potentially guiding clinical decisions and enhancing outcomes in this challenging disease.
Methods
A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using data from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, MEDLINE (including MEDLINE InProcess) (OvidSP), Web of Science, Embase (OvidSP), and Scopus databases. Risk of bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed using the ROB2 Cochrane tool. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan Cochrane software.
Results
Data from 10 studies, encompassing a total of 1,234 patients, were combined, resulting in an odds ratio (OR) of 1.18 [95% CI: 0.58–2.41] for clinical success, indicating no significant difference (p = 0.64) between ctDNA and alternative methods, with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 26%). Analyzing seven studies, which included 847 patients, for technical success yielded an OR of 1.64 [95% CI: 0.64–4.22] (p = 0.64), with 44% heterogeneity. Mortality data from three studies, covering 542 patients, indicated an OR of 0.99 [95% CI: 0.56–1.75] (p = 0.30), with 14% heterogeneity. No statistically significant differences were found for clinical success, technical success, or mortality between ctDNA and other procedures.
Conclusions
The meta-analysis revealed no significant differences in clinical success, technical success, or mortality between ctDNA and other methods in the pooled studies. These findings suggest comparable efficacy and outcomes, underscoring the necessity for further research to validate and optimize diagnostic approaches in clinical practice.
Clinical trial identification
Editorial acknowledgement
Legal entity responsible for the study
The authors.
Funding
Has not received any funding.
Disclosure
All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.