Abstract Background: Personalizing chemoradiotherapy (chemoRT) for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) is limited by the lack of early biomarkers that inform response during treatment. Current circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) molecular residual disease assays predict post-treatment outcomes but lack mid-treatment utility. ctDNA burden estimation has traditionally relied on variant-centric metrics such as maximum variant allele fraction (Max VAF), which rely on mutation-specific signals and may be confounded by histology-dependent shedding variability, allelic imbalance, and clonal hematopoiesis. Here we present circulating tumor fraction estimate (ctFE), a machine-learning composite score that integrates VAF distributions, copy-number alterations, and germline B-allele frequency deviations to approximate global tumor burden using a widely available, tumor-naïve clinical platform. Methods: A burden-based ctFE threshold was derived using pre-treatment plasma from a prospective phase II clinical trial of MR-guided hypofractionated chemoRT (LA-WU, n=26), locked, and applied unchanged to early mid-treatment samples (day 10-14). To test scalability and generalizability, its prognostic performance was validated in two real-world cohorts: 94 LA-NSCLC patients receiving definitive chemoRT (LA-RW) and 309 oligometastatic NSCLC patients receiving consolidative RT (OM-RW). ctFE and Max VAF were compared as continuous predictors across cohorts. Results: ctFE consistently outperformed Max VAF. In LA-WU, pre-treatment ctFE was associated with overall survival (OS HR=1.15, p=0.04) and progression-free survival (PFS HR=1.84, p=0.009), whereas Max VAF was not. Mid-treatment ctFE remained prognostic for PFS (HR=1.14, p=0.026). Early ctFE dynamics defined three molecular response groups with marked OS separation: consistently low, responder, and nonresponder groups (median OS 60.8 vs 13.0 vs 2.9 months, respectively; p0.001). In multivariable models including both biomarkers, higher ctFE remained independently associated with worse survival in LA-RW (OS HR=1.88, p=0.010) and OM-RW (OS HR=1.37, p=0.040; PFS HR=1.45, p=0.008), whereas Max VAF did not. The locked ctFE threshold stratified OS across all cohorts (LA-WU HR=5.93; LA-RW HR=9.08; OM-RW HR=2.26; all p0.001). Conclusion: ctFE provides clinically meaningful pre- and mid-treatment risk stratification and consistently outperforms Max VAF across locally advanced and oligometastatic NSCLC cohorts. We show that ctFE is a biologically informative, clinically generalizable and scalable ctDNA burden metric measurable using a tumor-naïve, off-the-shelf assay, supporting its practical utility in biomarker-adapted radiotherapy strategies. Citation Format: Ayesha Hashmi, Jessica Linford, Pradeep S. Chauhan, Kaushal Parikh, Rotem Ben-Shachar, John Guittar, Malvika Pillai, Jyoti Patel, Matteo Bergsagel, Nicholas P. Semenkovich, Kenneth R. Olivier, Sean S. Park, Dawn Owen, David M. Routman, Katie N. Lee, Alex D. Sherry, Aaron S. Mansfield, Daniel Morgensztern, Ramaswamy Govindan, Clifford G. Robinson, Carmen Bergom, Saiama N. Waqar, Bruna Pellini Ferreira, Gregory R. Vlacich, Aadel A. Chaudhuri. Early ctDNA quantification by ctFE outperforms Max VAF for survival stratification across locally advanced and oligometastatic NSCLC treated with radiotherapy abstract. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2026; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2026 Apr 17-22; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2026;86(7 Suppl):Abstract nr 1183.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Atif A Hashmi
Jessica Linford
Pradeep S. Chauhan
Cancer Research
University of Washington
Mayo Clinic in Arizona
Medical College of Wisconsin
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Hashmi et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/69d1fd8ea79560c99a0a3a66 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.am2026-1183
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: