{"title":"Circulating tumour DNA and extrachromosomal DNA in prostate and bladder cancer: biology, clinical applications and future perspectives.","authors":"Jihane Elmasmoudi, Axel S Merseburger","doi":"10.1007/s00345-026-06790-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To critically appraise circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) and extrachromosomal DNA (ecDNA) in prostate and bladder cancer, and to define what evidence links the two.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Narrative review of search period July-September 2026, supplemented by reference-list and citation screening, covering ctDNA and ecDNA biology, detection and clinical application in prostate and urothelial cancer. The ctDNA-ecDNA interface was appraised using a five-tier evidentiary framework (copy-number gain; structural rearrangement; amplicon-graph reconstruction; phasing/optical mapping; orthogonal validation).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In bladder cancer, the phase 3 IMvigor011 trial validated ctDNA-guided adjuvant atezolizumab (disease-free survival [DFS] HR 0.64; overall survival [OS] HR 0.59), while persistently ctDNA-negative patients had 2-year DFS/OS of 88.4%/97.1% without adjuvant therapy. In prostate cancer, ctDNA positivity and androgen-receptor alterations are strongly prognostic (median OS 29.0 vs. 47.4 months; HR 2.0), but no prospective ctDNA-guided interventional trial exists. ecDNA is present in approximately 36% of urothelial carcinomas and drives oncogene amplification, heterogeneity, immune evasion and resistance. Evidence linking the two is indirect and asymmetric: prostate cancer offers stronger longitudinal ctDNA evidence via plasma AR-ecDNA proxy signatures, whereas bladder cancer shows stronger structural evidence from urinary sediment; no structurally validated blood ecDNA has been reported. This evidence derives predominantly from metastatic cohorts (mCRPC, post-cystectomy bladder cancer), with no established role in earlier-stage or minimal-residual-disease settings.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ctDNA is clinically actionable in bladder cancer and prognostic in advanced prostate cancer, whereas ecDNA remains an investigational driver. Structural confirmation of ecDNA in blood, assay standardisation and prospective biomarker-stratified trials are the priorities for the field.</p>","PeriodicalId":23954,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Urology","volume":"44 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-026-06790-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: To critically appraise circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) and extrachromosomal DNA (ecDNA) in prostate and bladder cancer, and to define what evidence links the two.
Methods: Narrative review of search period July-September 2026, supplemented by reference-list and citation screening, covering ctDNA and ecDNA biology, detection and clinical application in prostate and urothelial cancer. The ctDNA-ecDNA interface was appraised using a five-tier evidentiary framework (copy-number gain; structural rearrangement; amplicon-graph reconstruction; phasing/optical mapping; orthogonal validation).
Results: In bladder cancer, the phase 3 IMvigor011 trial validated ctDNA-guided adjuvant atezolizumab (disease-free survival [DFS] HR 0.64; overall survival [OS] HR 0.59), while persistently ctDNA-negative patients had 2-year DFS/OS of 88.4%/97.1% without adjuvant therapy. In prostate cancer, ctDNA positivity and androgen-receptor alterations are strongly prognostic (median OS 29.0 vs. 47.4 months; HR 2.0), but no prospective ctDNA-guided interventional trial exists. ecDNA is present in approximately 36% of urothelial carcinomas and drives oncogene amplification, heterogeneity, immune evasion and resistance. Evidence linking the two is indirect and asymmetric: prostate cancer offers stronger longitudinal ctDNA evidence via plasma AR-ecDNA proxy signatures, whereas bladder cancer shows stronger structural evidence from urinary sediment; no structurally validated blood ecDNA has been reported. This evidence derives predominantly from metastatic cohorts (mCRPC, post-cystectomy bladder cancer), with no established role in earlier-stage or minimal-residual-disease settings.
Conclusion: ctDNA is clinically actionable in bladder cancer and prognostic in advanced prostate cancer, whereas ecDNA remains an investigational driver. Structural confirmation of ecDNA in blood, assay standardisation and prospective biomarker-stratified trials are the priorities for the field.
期刊介绍:
The WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY conveys regularly the essential results of urological research and their practical and clinical relevance to a broad audience of urologists in research and clinical practice. In order to guarantee a balanced program, articles are published to reflect the developments in all fields of urology on an internationally advanced level. Each issue treats a main topic in review articles of invited international experts. Free papers are unrelated articles to the main topic.