# Tailoring treatment for advanced and/or recurrent ovarian cancer using the response of circulating tumor cells to therapy: a retrospective analysis

Source: https://onco.cc/key-papers/paper-adar-rgcc-ctc-ovarian-ijgc-2026/  
OnCo record `paper-adar-rgcc-ctc-ovarian-ijgc-2026` (Key paper). Data CC BY-NC 4.0, attribute "Data from OnCo (onco.cc)"; commercial use needs a licence.

## TL;DR

A single-centre review of recurrent ovarian cancer reported longer time before progression on a circulating tumour cell-guided treatment line than on each patient's previous line. The comparison was not randomised and cannot show that the assay caused the difference.

## Summary

Investigators reviewed 334 records from one centre. Eighty-eight patients were referred for circulating tumour cell testing, 66 received treatment described as guided by the result, and 48 completed treatment and response assessment. Median progression-free survival was 6.67 months on the guided line versus 4.40 months on each patient's preceding line; 27 of 48 had a progression-free survival ratio above 1.3.

This was a retrospective, non-randomised comparison, not a trial against contemporary guideline-based treatment. Patients who did not receive the suggested treatment often lacked access or coverage, creating important selection and socioeconomic differences. Overall survival from diagnosis did not differ significantly between guided and non-guided groups. RGCC supported administrative data collection, and one author worked for its Israeli representative.

## Fields

- Kind: Key paper
- Last checked: 2026-11-04
- Tags: rgcc; retrospective; evidence:limited
- Journal: International Journal of Gynecological Cancer
- Year: 2026
- DOI: 10.1016/j.ijgc.2025.102767
- Authors: Adar L, Shachar E, Laskov I, et al.
- Findings: Among 48 evaluable patients, median progression-free survival was 6.67 months on the test-guided line and 4.40 months on the previous line.; Twenty-seven of 48 evaluable patients had a progression-free survival ratio above 1.3.; Overall survival from diagnosis was not significantly different between the guided and non-guided groups.
- What it means: The study is a hypothesis-generating signal that justifies a prospective controlled trial. It does not establish that an RGCC assay improves survival or that its recommendations outperform standard oncology care.
- Caveats: Retrospective, single-centre and non-randomised, with only 48 evaluable patients in the main within-person comparison.; Comparing a later treatment line with the previous line is vulnerable to selection, time and treatment differences and cannot isolate the assay's effect.; The tested-but-not-guided group differed in access to recommended therapy, including availability, coverage and affordability.; RGCC supported administrative data collection, and one author was employed by RGCC's Israeli representative.

## Sources

- PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41339201/
- Publisher article: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgc.2025.102767
- Tel Aviv University record: https://cris.tau.ac.il/en/publications/tailoring-treatment-for-advanced-andor-recurrent-ovarian-cancer-u/

## Connected records

- cancers: [Ovarian cancer](https://onco.cc/cancers/ovarian/)
- technologies: [Circulating tumour cell capture](https://onco.cc/technologies/ctc-capture/), [Functional (ex vivo) drug testing](https://onco.cc/technologies/functional-drug-testing/), [Liquid biopsy (ctDNA)](https://onco.cc/technologies/liquid-biopsy/)
- companies: [RGCC International](https://onco.cc/companies/rgcc-international/)

---
JSON: https://onco.cc/api/v1/entities/paper-adar-rgcc-ctc-ovarian-ijgc-2026.json