Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 463

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Analysis of circulating tumour DNA to monitor disease burden following colorectal cancer surgery

Open access
Reinert, Thomas, Schøler, Lone V, Thomsen, Rune, Tobiasen, Heidi, Vang, Søren, Nordentoft, Iver, Lamy, Philippe, Kannerup, Anne-Sofie, Mortensen, Frank V, Stribolt, Katrine, Hamilton-Dutoit, Stephen, Nielsen, Hans J, Laurberg, Søren, Pallisgaard, Niels, Pedersen, Jakob S, Ørntoft, Torben F, Andersen, Claus L·2016·Gut

Abstract

Objective: To develop an affordable and robust pipeline for selection of patient-specific somatic structural variants (SSVs) being informative about radicality of the primary resection, response to adjuvant therapy, incipient recurrence and response to treatment performed in relation to diagnosis of recurrence. Design: We have established efficient procedures for identification of SSVs by next-generation sequencing and subsequent quantification of 3–6 SSVs in plasma. The consequence of intratumour heterogeneity on our approach was assessed. The level of circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) was quantified in 151 serial plasma samples from six relapsing and five non-relapsing colorectal cancer (CRC) patients by droplet digital PCR, and correlated to clinical findings. Results: Up to six personalised assays were designed for each patient. Our approach enabled efficient temporal assessment of disease status, response to surgical and oncological intervention, and early detection of incipient recurrence. Our approach provided 2–15 (mean 10) months' lead time on detection of metastatic recurrence compared to conventional follow-up. The sensitivity and specificity of the SSVs in terms of detecting postsurgery relapse were 100%. Conclusions: We show that assessment of ctDNA is a non-invasive, exquisitely specific and highly sensitive approach for monitoring disease load, which has the potential to provide clinically relevant lead times compared with conventional methods. Furthermore, we provide a low-coverage protocol optimised for identifying SSVs with excellent correlation between SSVs identified in tumours and matched metastases. Application of ctDNA analysis has the potential to change clinical practice in the management of CRC.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/gutjnl-2014-308859

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 463

Metadata

Authors
Reinert, T., Schøler, L. V., Thomsen, R., Tobiasen, H., Vang, S., Nordentoft, I., Lamy, P., Kannerup, A.-S., Mortensen, F. V., Stribolt, K., Hamilton-Dutoit, S., Nielsen, H. J., Laurberg, S., Pallisgaard, N., Pedersen, J. S., Ørntoft, T. F., & Andersen, C. L.
Venue
Gut
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2015-02-04
Volume
65
Issue
4
Pages
625-634
ISSN
  • 0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-3288
OpenAlex
W2107721849
Cited by
463
References
5
FWCI
14.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Analysis of circulating tumour DNA to monitor disease burden following colorectal cancer surgery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/gutjnl-2014-308859
The paper
Reinert, T., Schøler, L. V., Thomsen, R., Tobiasen, H., Vang, S., Nordentoft, I., Lamy, P., Kannerup, A.-S., Mortensen, F. V., Stribolt, K., Hamilton-Dutoit, S., Nielsen, H. J., Laurberg, S., Pallisgaard, N., Pedersen, J. S., Ørntoft, T. F., & Andersen, C. L. (2016). Analysis of circulating tumour DNA to monitor disease burden following colorectal cancer surgery. Gut. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2014-308859

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.