Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 297

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Exploratory Analysis of TP53 Mutations in Circulating Tumour DNA as Biomarkers of Treatment Response for Patients with Relapsed High-Grade Serous Ovarian Carcinoma: A Retrospective Study

Open access
Parkinson, Christine A., Gale, Davina, Piskorz, Anna M., Biggs, Heather, Hodgkin, Charlotte, Addley, Helen, Freeman, Sue, Moyle, Penelope, Sala, Evis, Sayal, Karen, Hosking, Karen, Gounaris, Ioannis, Jimenez-Linan, Mercedes, Earl, Helena M., Qian, Wendi, Rosenfeld, Nitzan, Brenton, James D.·2016·PLOS Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) carrying tumour-specific sequence alterations may provide a minimally invasive means to dynamically assess tumour burden and response to treatment in cancer patients. Somatic TP53 mutations are a defining feature of high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma (HGSOC). We tested whether these mutations could be used as personalised markers to monitor tumour burden and early changes as a predictor of response and time to progression (TTP). METHODS AND FINDINGS: We performed a retrospective analysis of serial plasma samples collected during routine clinical visits from 40 patients with HGSOC undergoing heterogeneous standard of care treatment. Patient-specific TP53 assays were developed for 31 unique mutations identified in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumour DNA from these patients. These assays were used to quantify ctDNA in 318 plasma samples using microfluidic digital PCR. The TP53 mutant allele fraction (TP53MAF) was compared to serum CA-125, the current gold-standard response marker for HGSOC in blood, as well as to disease volume on computed tomography scans by volumetric analysis. Changes after one cycle of treatment were compared with TTP. The median TP53MAF prior to treatment in 51 relapsed treatment courses was 8% (interquartile range [IQR] 1.2%-22%) compared to 0.7% (IQR 0.3%-2.0%) for seven untreated newly diagnosed stage IIIC/IV patients. TP53MAF correlated with volumetric measurements (Pearson r = 0.59, p < 0.001), and this correlation improved when patients with ascites were excluded (r = 0.82). The ratio of TP53MAF to volume of disease was higher in relapsed patients (0.04% per cm3) than in untreated patients (0.0008% per cm3, p = 0.004). In nearly all relapsed patients with disease volume > 32 cm3, ctDNA was detected at ≥20 amplifiable copies per millilitre of plasma. In 49 treatment courses for relapsed disease, pre-treatment TP53MAF concentration, but not CA-125, was associated with TTP. Response to chemotherapy was seen earlier with ctDNA, with a median time to nadir of 37 d (IQR 28-54) compared with a median time to nadir of 84 d (IQR 42-116) for CA-125. In 32 relapsed treatment courses evaluable for response after one cycle of chemotherapy, a decrease in TP53MAF of >60% was an independent predictor of TTP in multivariable analysis (hazard ratio 0.22, 95% CI 0.07-0.67, p = 0.008). Conversely, a decrease in TP53MAF of ≤60% was associated with poor response and identified cases with TTP < 6 mo with 71% sensitivity (95% CI 42%-92%) and 88% specificity (95% CI 64%-99%). Specificity was improved when patients with recent drainage of ascites were excluded. Ascites drainage led to a reduction of TP53MAF concentration. The limitations of this study include retrospective design, small sample size, and heterogeneity of treatment within the cohort. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective study, we demonstrated that ctDNA is correlated with volume of disease at the start of treatment in women with HGSOC and that a decrease of ≤60% in TP53MAF after one cycle of chemotherapy was associated with shorter TTP. These results provide evidence that ctDNA has the potential to be a highly specific early molecular response marker in HGSOC and warrants further investigation in larger cohorts receiving uniform treatment.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002198

Cites

9 of 9 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 9 references

Cited by

See all 297

Metadata

Authors
Parkinson, C. A., Gale, D., Piskorz, A. M., Biggs, H., Hodgkin, C., Addley, H., Freeman, S., Moyle, P., Sala, E., Sayal, K., Hosking, K., Gounaris, I., Jimenez-Linan, M., Earl, H. M., Qian, W., Rosenfeld, N., & Brenton, J. D.
Venue
PLOS Medicine
Published
2016-12-20
Volume
13
Issue
12
Pages
e1002198
ISSN
  • 1549-1277 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-1676
OpenAlex
W2561358247
Cited by
297
References
9
FWCI
31.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Exploratory Analysis of TP53 Mutations in Circulating Tumour DNA as Biomarkers of Treatment Response for Patients with Relapsed High-Grade Serous Ovarian Carcinoma: A Retrospective Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002198
The paper
Parkinson, C. A., Gale, D., Piskorz, A. M., Biggs, H., Hodgkin, C., Addley, H., Freeman, S., Moyle, P., Sala, E., Sayal, K., Hosking, K., Gounaris, I., Jimenez-Linan, M., Earl, H. M., Qian, W., Rosenfeld, N., & Brenton, J. D. (2016). Exploratory Analysis of TP53 Mutations in Circulating Tumour DNA as Biomarkers of Treatment Response for Patients with Relapsed High-Grade Serous Ovarian Carcinoma: A Retrospective Study. PLOS Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002198

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.