Circulating tumor DNA as prognostic markers of relapsed breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is increasingly being used as a potential prognosis biomarker in patients of breast cancer. This review aims to assess the clinical value of ctDNA in outcome prediction in breast cancer patients throughout the whole treatment cycle. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and clinical trials.gov were searched from January 2016 to May 2022. Conference abstracts published in last three years were also included. The following search terms were used: ctDNA OR circulating tumor DNA AND breast cancer OR breast carcinoma. Only studies written in English languages were included. The following pre-specified criteria should be met for inclusion: (1) observational studies (prospective or retrospective), randomized control trials, case-control studies and case series studies; (2) patients with breast cancer; (3) ctDNA measurement; (4) clinical outcome data such as objective response rate (ORR), pathological complete response (pCR), relapse-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS), and so on. The random-effect model was preferred considering the potential heterogeneity across studies. The primary outcomes included postoperative short-term outcomes (ORR and pCR) and postoperative long-term outcomes (RFS, OS, and relapse). Secondary outcomes focused on ctDNA detection rate. Results: A total of 30 studies, comprising of 19 cohort studies, 2 case-control studies and 9 case series studies were included. The baseline ctDNA was significantly negatively associated with ORR outcome (Relative Risk [RR] = 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.50–0.83), with lower ORR in the ctDNA-positive group than ctDNA-negative group. ctDNA during neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) treatment was significantly associated with pCR outcomes (Odds Ratio [OR] = 0.15, 95% CI: 0.04–0.54). The strong association between ctDNA and RFS or relapse outcome was significant across the whole treatment period, especially after the surgery (RFS: Hazard Ratio [HR] = 6.74, 95% CI: 3.73–12.17; relapse outcome: RR = 7.11, 95% CI: 3.05–16.53), although there was heterogeneity in these results. Pre-operative and post-operative ctDNA measurements were significantly associated with OS outcomes (pre-operative: HR = 2.03, 95% CI: 1.12–3.70; post-operative: HR = 6.03, 95% CI: 1.31–27.78). Conclusions: In this review, ctDNA measurements at different timepoints are correlated with evaluation indexes at different periods after treatment. The ctDNA can be used as an early potential postoperative prognosis biomarker in breast cancer, and also as a reference index to evaluate the therapeutic effect at different stages.