Kaimen Rigor reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

Post-adjuvant chemotherapy in ctDNA-positive patients with resected colorectal cancer: a randomized phase 3 trial.

Name: Kaimen Rigor review — Post-adjuvant chemotherapy in ctDNA-positive patients with resected colorectal cancer: a randomized phase 3 trial.
Item: Post-adjuvant chemotherapy in ctDNA-positive patients with resected colorectal cancer: a randomized phase 3 trial.
Rating: 100
Author: Alpha1

Bando H, Watanabe J, Takahashi Y, Kotaka M, Matsuhashi N, Oki E, Komatsu Y, Shiozawa M, Hirata K, Miyamoto Y, Takahashi M, Yamazaki K, Manaka D, Kanazawa A, Liang YH, Yeh KH, Watsuji Y, Yamamoto Y, Fukui M, Sharma S, Aushev VN, Jurdi A, Rabinowitz M, Liu MC, Aleshin A, Takemasa I, Kotani D, Sato A, Misumi T, Nakamura Y, Shi Q, Taniguchi H, Yoshino T, Kato T

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Kaimen Rigor review — 3.5★ (Adequate), 0 critical, 2 high issues for “Post-adjuvant chemotherapy in ctDNA-positive patients with resected colorectal cancer: a randomized phase 3 trial.”

Links back to this Kaimen Rigor review.

Alpha1 Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Alpha1 Editorial · August 15, 2026

Read alongside

Post-adjuvant chemotherapy in ctDNA-positive patients with resected colorectal cancer: a randomized phase 3 trial.

Read full text (PMC)

DOI

10.1038/s41591-026-04428-0

Share this Kaimen Rigor review

Post on X Share on LinkedIn Share via Email

Embed this Rigor badge

<a href="https://alpha1science.com/verify/5261a62e-11cc-4dcf-a99a-0c285ca6b147" target="_blank" rel="noopener">
  <img src="https://alpha1science.com/verify/5261a62e-11cc-4dcf-a99a-0c285ca6b147/badge" alt="Kaimen Rigor review — 3.5★ (Adequate), 0 critical, 2 high issues for “Post-adjuvant chemotherapy in ctDNA-positive patients with resected colorectal cancer: a randomized phase 3 trial.”" width="440" height="104" style="max-width:100%;height:auto" />
</a>

Every embed links back to this Kaimen Rigor review.

Record fingerprint

d45fdfcfa79154d04e91870f9ae6878ee82f0fee1c4d8db57707dfb55d407796

Verify via API

Issued Aug 15, 2026Engine 7.39.0

Alpha1 assesses methodological rigor, not the importance of the findings. See how we calibrate →

Alpha¹ by Kaimen

Fetching the latest research

Kaimen Rigor reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

Post-adjuvant chemotherapy in ctDNA-positive patients with resected colorectal cancer: a randomized phase 3 trial.

Paper source

Post-adjuvant chemotherapy in ctDNA-positive patients with resected colorectal cancer: a randomized phase 3 trial.

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Links back to this Kaimen Rigor review.

Alpha1 Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Alpha1 Editorial · August 15, 2026

Kaimen Rigor review

Kaimen Rigor reviewed

3.5 / 5

Adequate — real issues to address

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern−0.5★
ClaimsEfficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint−0.5★
ClaimsTreatment effect not shown to be clinically meaningful−0.5★

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.39.0Source: full text

Biggest issues

01Efficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint
highOverreachreviewer-assessedFull detail
The primary endpoint is disease-free survival (DFS), which is a clinical outcome, but the trial did not meet its primary endpoint. The efficacy claim is based on exploratory analyses of ctDNA clearance and subgroup analyses, which are surrogate biomarkers. The paper does not provide validated evidence linking ctDNA clearance to clinical benefit, and target engagement at the tested dose is not established.
“The ctDNA clearance rate, defined as the proportion of patients who tested negative for ctDNA at the first assessment after completion of the study treatment, was 17.2% (95% CI: 11.0–25.1) in the FTD/TPI group and 12.4% (95% CI: 7.1–19.6) in the placebo group…”
Find in source
02Treatment effect not shown to be clinically meaningful
highOverreachreviewer-assessedFull detail
The primary analysis showed a non-significant improvement in DFS (HR=0.79, P=0.107). The exploratory subgroup analysis in stage IV showed a larger effect (HR=0.53, P=0.012), but this was not adjusted for multiplicity and is hypothesis-generating. The effect size is not anchored to a minimal clinically important difference, and the primary endpoint was not met.
“Median DFS was 9.30 months with FTD/TPI and 5.55 months with placebo (hazard ratio = 0.79, 95% confidence interval: 0.60–1.05, P = 0.107), and the primary endpoint was not met.”
Find in source

Findings by category

101ArithmeticNumerical inconsistencies 302OverreachOverstated conclusions 03AuthenticityNone found 04DisclosureNone found 05AvailabilityNone found 06Copyedit4 minor suggestions

This Kaimen Rigor review uses Kaimen Rigor reviewers trained on a curated corpus of high-fidelity and retracted papers, with expert supervision and curation. It can still make mistakes; verify each finding against the source before relying on it.

This is a well-conducted and transparently reported randomized phase 3 trial. The paper demonstrates strong scientific premise, rigorous design, and comprehensive reporting across all eight dimensions, with only minor reporting gaps such as the unspecified randomization method and minor copyedit inconsistencies.

Both reviewers independently scored all eight dimensions and agreed on every status; no divergence required reconciliation. The study is an interventional clinical trial; non-applicable sub-criteria (e.g., animal housing, cell line authentication) were excluded. The statistics verification recomputed only a subset of reported tests (9 of many), so the paper's statistics should not be considered fully verified beyond those checks.

Numerical inconsistencies

1 finding · worst low

Values that contradict each other or are impossible for the stated sample: recomputed p-values and test statistics, GRIM/GRIMMER checks on summary numbers, percentages against their own counts, totals against their parts, and estimates against their own confidence intervals.

Internal contradictions in the reported numbersAssessed

Recomputed 9 tests: 9 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 6 recomputed directly from the reported test statistics, 3 via agent-written checks.

Overstated conclusions

3 findings · worst high

Conclusions that reach past what the paper's own results support — including a significance claim that no longer holds when the statistic is recomputed, and efficacy resting on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint.

Efficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpointAssessed
Treatment effect not shown to be clinically meaningfulAssessed
Conclusions only partially backed by the presented evidenceAssessed

5 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: 2 only partially supported (evidence backs part of the claim; gaps or caveats remain); the rest adequately supported.

Premise concern: surrogate not validated for clinical benefit; effect size not shown to be clinically meaningful.

Data authenticity concerns

None found

An adversarial read for patterns associated with data that may not be genuine: results that look too clean, implausibly large effects, duplicated data or images, and methods that do not match the results reported.

Checked — nothing surfaced.

Reporting gaps

None found

Required detail the manuscript never states — study design, biological variables, ethics approval and consent, key resources, statistical reporting, data and code availability, and overall transparency.

Checked — nothing surfaced.

Eight Dimensions8 pass

The introduction cites multiple prior trials (DYNAMIC-II, DYNAMIC-III, RECOURSE) and discusses their strengths and limitations, including the failure of DYNAMIC-III to show benefit and the rationale for a uniform intervention. The premise that early intervention upon molecular recurrence may improve outcomes is logically developed, and the study addresses limitations of prior work by using a consistent treatment and a post-adjuvant surveillance strategy.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The paper establishes a strong scientific premise by citing prior research on ctDNA-guided therapy and FTD/TPI efficacy, and clearly links the rationale to the study objectives.

Evidence

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraphs 3-5]

“Evidence supporting ctDNA-guided ACT decision-making for stage II colon cancer has emerged from the randomized DYNAMIC-II trial, which demonstrated non-inferior recurrence-free survival with reduced chemotherapy use compared to standard management. However, the randomized DYNAMIC-III trial failed to demonstrate improved outcomes with ctDNA-guided treatment escalation or deescalation for stage III colon cancer.”

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraph 5]

“In the RECOURSE phase 3 trial, FTD/TPI significantly improved OS in patients with refractory metastatic CRC who had progressed after standard chemotherapy regimens... (7.1 months versus 5.3 months with placebo; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.58–0.81, P < 0.001).”

“By contrast, ALTAIR was designed to evaluate a uniform intervention—FTD/TPI—against placebo after completion of SoC treatment, allowing a clearer assessment of drug-specific efficacy in the MRD-positive setting.”

Discussion ¶2Find in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The paper establishes a strong scientific premise with extensive prior work and a clear rationale for the trial.

Evidence

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraphs 2-4]

“Evidence supporting ctDNA-guided ACT decision-making for stage II colon cancer has emerged from the randomized DYNAMIC-II trial... However, the randomized DYNAMIC-III trial failed to demonstrate improved outcomes with ctDNA-guided treatment escalation or deescalation for stage III colon cancer.”

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraph 4]

“In the RECOURSE phase 3 trial, FTD/TPI significantly improved OS in patients with refractory metastatic CRC... (7.1 months versus 5.3 months with placebo; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.58–0.81, P < 0.001).”

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraph 4]

“Notably, multiple irinotecan-based adjuvant trials, including studies evaluating FOLFIRI in the postoperative setting, have failed to demonstrate a survival benefit, suggesting limited rationale for irinotecan-based regimens as MRD-directed therapy.”

Randomization method is not explicitly described (e.g., random number generator), but the trial is described as randomized 1:1 and double-blind, which is standard for a phase 3 trial. The unit of randomization is the patient. Blinding is stated as double-blind. Power analysis is reported with assumptions (median DFS 8 months, HR 0.667, alpha 0.05, power 0.80) and required sample size (240 patients, 190 events). Inclusion/exclusion criteria are detailed. Outlier handling is addressed through the pre-specified analysis population (FAS) and sensitivity analyses. Controls are the placebo arm. Independent replication is not applicable for a single pivotal trial.

Sub-criteria

controlsADEQUATE

power analysisADEQUATE

blinding levelsADEQUATE

outlier handlingADEQUATE

randomization unitADEQUATE

inclusion exclusionADEQUATE

randomization methodINADEQUATE

replicate distinctionN/A

independent replicationN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

The trial design is rigorous with clear randomization, blinding, power analysis, and pre-specified inclusion/exclusion criteria; the primary analysis is appropriately defined.

Evidence

paraphrase[Methods, Trial design and interventions]

“Patients enrolled in ALTAIR were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive a 28-day course of either FTD/TPI... or placebo.”

“The study assumed a median DFS of 8 months in the placebo group, an HR of 0.667 for the FTD/TPI group, a significance level of 0.05 and a power of 0.80. With a planned 2-year enrollment period and 1-year follow-up, the trial required 240 patients and 190 events to achieve its objectives.”

MethodsFind in source

“We enrolled patients aged 20 years or older with histopathologically diagnosed CRC (stage II or lower, stage III or oligometastatic stage IV) who had undergone radical resection of the primary and/or metastatic tumors.”

MethodsFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

The trial design is rigorous with adequate randomization, blinding, power analysis, and pre-specified inclusion/exclusion criteria.

Evidence

paraphrase[Methods, Trial design and interventions]

“Patients enrolled in ALTAIR were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive a 28-day course of either FTD/TPI... or placebo.”

“ALTAIR was a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial”

AbstractFind in source

MethodsFind in source

Sex is reported (58.4% male) and age is reported (63.8% under 70). Demographics include primary site, stage, and treatment history. Since both sexes are enrolled, sex_justified is not applicable. Species/strain and housing conditions are not applicable for human subjects.

Sub-criteria

demographicsADEQUATE

sex reportedADEQUATE

sex justifiedN/A

age weight healthADEQUATE

housing conditionsN/A

species strain sourceN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Sex, age, and other demographics are reported; the study includes both sexes, so sex justification is not applicable. Species/strain and housing are not applicable for a human trial.

Evidence

“Most patients were male ( n = 142, 58.4%) and under 70 years of age ( n = 155, 63.8%).”

ResultsFind in source

“Disease stage at diagnosis was distributed as follows: stage I (10/243, 4.1%), stage II (58/243, 23.9%), stage III (109/243, 44.9%) and stage IV (66/243, 24.2%).”

ResultsFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Biological variables are well reported for a human trial, including sex, age, and demographics.

Evidence

“Male | 142 (58%) | 71 (59%) | 71 (58%)”

Table 1Find in source

“<70 | 155 (64%) | 78 (64%) | 77 (63%)”

Table 1Find in source

paraphrase[Table 1]

“Primary site | Right-sided colon | 60 (26%) | 29 (24%) | 31 (25%)”

The Methods state that the protocol received approval from the IRB or IEC at each participating site, all patients provided written informed consent, and the trial was conducted in accordance with GCP and the Declaration of Helsinki. This satisfies both irb_ethics_statement and informed_consent. Regulatory compliance is stated by naming GCP and Declaration of Helsinki.

Sub-criteria

iacuc statementN/A

informed consentADEQUATE

irb ethics statementADEQUATE

regulatory complianceADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

Ethical approval is adequately reported: IRB/IEC approval at each site, written informed consent, and compliance with GCP and Declaration of Helsinki.

Evidence

“The protocol received approval from the institutional review board (IRB) or independent ethics committee (IEC) at each participating study site. All patients provided written informed consent, and the trial was performed in line with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.”

EthicsFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

Ethical approvals and consent are adequately reported.

Evidence

“The protocol received approval from the institutional review board (IRB) or independent ethics committee (IEC) at each participating study site.”

EthicsFind in source

“All patients provided written informed consent, and the trial was performed in line with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.”

EthicsFind in source

“This trial was conducted in accordance with Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guidelines and adhered strictly to the study protocol.”

EthicsFind in source

FTD/TPI is named with dose (35 mg/m²) and regimen. The ctDNA assay is identified as Signatera (Natera). Statistical software (SAS 9.4, R 4.4.0) is identified. Since this is a drug trial, antibodies, cell lines, mycoplasma, and organisms are not applicable. Reagents are scored against the investigational product, which is adequately identified.

Sub-criteria

mycoplasma testingN/A

reagents identifiedADEQUATE

organisms identifiedN/A

antibodies identifiedN/A

cell line authenticationN/A

software tools identifiedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The investigational product (FTD/TPI) is identified with dose and regimen; the ctDNA assay (Signatera) is identified with manufacturer; statistical software is identified.

Evidence

“FTD/TPI (administered orally at a dose of 35 mg m − 2 per dose) or placebo twice daily for five consecutive days, followed by a 2-day withdrawal.”

MethodsFind in source

“ctDNA analysis was performed using a clinically validated, personalized, tumor-informed 16-plex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) next-generation sequencing (NGS) assay (Signatera; Natera).”

MethodsFind in source

“Statistical analyses were performed using both SAS software (version 9.4; SAS Institute) and R software (version 4.4.0).”

Statistical analysisFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The investigational product (FTD/TPI) and the ctDNA assay (Signatera) are adequately identified.

Evidence

“FTD/TPI (administered orally at a dose of 35 mg m − 2 per dose) or placebo twice daily for five consecutive days, followed by a 2-day withdrawal.”

MethodsFind in source

“ctDNA analysis was performed using a clinically validated, personalized, tumor-informed 16-plex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) next-generation sequencing (NGS) assay (Signatera; Natera).”

MethodsFind in source

“Statistical analyses were performed using both SAS software (version 9.4; SAS Institute) and R software (version 4.4.0).”

Statistical analysisFind in source

Tests are named (log-rank, Cox, Fisher's exact, t-test, mixed-effects). Assumptions are verified via Schoenfeld residuals and global tests. Exact p-values are reported (e.g., P = 0.107). Effect sizes with CIs are reported (HR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.60–1.05). Software is identified. Data presentation includes Kaplan-Meier curves and per-group n. Mathematical plausibility is not applicable for large-N continuous outcomes.

Sub-criteria

tests namedADEQUATE

exact p valuesADEQUATE

effect sizes ciADEQUATE

data presentationADEQUATE

software identifiedADEQUATE

assumptions verifiedADEQUATE

mathematical plausibilityN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Statistical methods are well described, including tests, software, and handling of assumptions; p-values are reported exactly; effect sizes with CIs are provided.

Evidence

“HR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.60–1.05, P = 0.107”

ResultsFind in source

“Proportional hazard assumptions for DFS were evaluated using Schoenfeld residuals and global tests.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Statistical methods are well described, with named tests, effect sizes with CIs, and software identified.

Evidence

paraphrase[Methods, Statistical analysis]

“A stratified log-rank test was employed to compare DFS between the two groups... Proportional hazard assumptions for DFS were evaluated using Schoenfeld residuals and global tests.”

“HR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.60–1.05, P = 0.107”

ResultsFind in source

“HR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.60–1.05”

ResultsFind in source

The data availability statement explains that individual participant data are not publicly available due to privacy, but deidentified data may be available upon reasonable request subject to approval by the steering committee and IRBs, which is a concrete managed-access route. Code is deposited in a GitHub repository with a URL. Repository deposit and accession numbers are not applicable for patient-level data.

Sub-criteria

code sharingADEQUATE

accession numbersN/A

repository depositN/A

data availability statementADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Data availability statement is present with a concrete access route (managed access via corresponding author and steering committee); code is deposited in a public GitHub repository.

Evidence

“Deidentified individual participant data may be made available from the corresponding author (T.Y., tyoshino@east.ncc.go.jp) upon reasonable request, subject to approval by the CIRCULATE-Japan study steering committee and relevant IRBs and execution of a data-sharing agreement in accordance with institutional and regulatory policies.”

Data availabilityFind in source

“The fully documented code for the R statistical computing environment for analyses related to this paper is deposited in the GitHub repository and can be accessed at https://github.com/Natera-TMED/Bando-et-al_ALTAIR-Clinical-analysis.git .”

Data availabilityFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Data availability statement is adequate with a managed-access route, and code is shared in a public repository.

Evidence

Data availabilityFind in source

Trial registration is provided (NCT04457297). Methods are detailed enough for replication. A CONSORT checklist is mentioned in supplementary. All outcomes are reported, including negative results. Limitations are explicitly discussed. Conclusions are appropriately cautious, noting exploratory analyses. Funding and competing interests are disclosed.

Sub-criteria

funding coiADEQUATE

trial registrationADEQUATE

reporting guidelineADEQUATE

methods completenessADEQUATE

all outcomes reportedADEQUATE

limitations discussedADEQUATE

conclusions proportionalADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

The trial is registered, methods are complete, limitations are discussed, conclusions are proportional, and funding/COI are disclosed.

Evidence

“ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04457297”

AbstractFind in source

paraphrase[Discussion, paragraph 4]

“This study has several limitations. The primary analysis did not reach statistical significance... heterogeneity in the enrolled population... may have confounded the study outcomes.”

paraphrase[Acknowledgements and Competing interests]

“The ALTAIR study received financial support from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development... and Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., which also provided the study drug and placebo.”

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

Reporting is transparent with trial registration, CONSORT checklist, limitations, and funding/COI statements.

Evidence

“ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04457297”

AbstractFind in source

“Supplementary Tables 1 and 2, site IRB list, study protocol, statistical analysis plan, and CONSORT checklist.”

Supplementary materialFind in source

paraphrase[Discussion, paragraph 5]

“This study has several limitations. The primary analysis did not reach statistical significance...”

Registered (1 ID: ClinicalTrials.gov). Reporting guideline cited: CONSORT.

Broken references and links

None found

References checked against Crossref, OpenAlex and Retraction Watch for retractions and resolvability, plus declared data and code links probed for whether they resolve to content matching the paper.

Checked — nothing surfaced.

Checked 20 references by DOI: 19 verified — 1 no DOI (shown, not verified).

2 data/code links checked; 2 live.

Copyediting

4 minor

Wording, consistency and formatting errors that need correcting before submission.

No major wording or formatting errors. 4 minor suggestions below.

4 copyedit issues flagged: mostly consistency, clarity.

Kaimen Rigor Action ItemsFinal pass before journal submission

The published work is robust and well-reported; an informed reader should weigh the minor reporting gaps (unspecified randomization method, minor internal inconsistency in ctDNA clearance percentages) as low-severity issues that do not undermine the main conclusions. No erratum is warranted for the identified issues, though the authors may consider clarifying the randomization method and the ctDNA clearance discrepancy in a correction or correspondence.

1.
HIGHrigor
In the Methods (Trial design and interventions), specify the randomization method (e.g., computer-generated random sequence, block size, allocation concealment) to fully satisfy the randomization_method criterion.
The current description only states 'randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio' without detailing the method, which is a minor but easily fixable reporting gap.
2.
HIGHrigor
In the Results (ctDNA clearance), reconcile the inconsistent percentages for placebo ctDNA clearance: the text states '9.6% (11/115)' but later '14 of 115 (12.2%)' for sustained clearance; verify which is correct and correct the error.
An internal contradiction in reported numbers is a validity threat that could confuse readers and may warrant a correction.
3.
MEDIUMreporting
In the Methods, add a statement on whether the trial was registered in a public registry before enrollment (the registration number is given, but the timing is not stated).
Prospective registration is a key transparency indicator; stating the timing strengthens the reporting.
4.
MEDIUMreporting
In the Discussion, add a brief note on the generalizability of the findings to non-Japanese/Taiwanese populations, as the trial was conducted only in these countries.
The current discussion does not address potential ethnic/regional limitations, which is a common reviewer concern.
5.
MEDIUMdata code
In the Data Availability section, provide a timeline for responding to data access requests to make the managed-access route more concrete.
The current statement lacks a timeframe, which reduces its practical utility for readers seeking data.
6.
MEDIUMreporting
In the Methods, report the exact version of the CONSORT checklist used (e.g., CONSORT 2010) and explicitly state adherence in the main text.
The checklist is only mentioned in supplementary; explicit adherence in the main text improves transparency.
7.
MEDIUMreporting
In the Results, report the number of patients screened for eligibility and the reasons for exclusion in the CONSORT diagram to improve transparency.
The current CONSORT flow is incomplete without screening numbers, which is a standard reporting requirement.
8.
LOWcopyedit
In the Results (Patient cohort), ensure the percentage for ACT (46.1%) is consistent with Table 1 (46%) by using consistent rounding.
Minor rounding inconsistency could be flagged by careful readers.
9.
LOWcopyedit
In the Discussion, clarify the derivation of the 24-month HR calculation (HR = 0.772 / 0.839 = 0.921) to avoid confusion.
The calculation is explained but could be clearer for readers.
10.
LOWcopyedit
In Table 1, use consistent decimal places for percentages (e.g., 66 (27.2%) instead of 66 (27%)) across the table.
Minor formatting inconsistency in percentage decimal places.

Full text (69,719 chars)Analyzed: Aug 15, 2026

Start the discussion on JRNLClub

Community discussion on jrnlclub.com

Read alongside

Post-adjuvant chemotherapy in ctDNA-positive patients with resected colorectal cancer: a randomized phase 3 trial.

Read full text (PMC)

DOI

10.1038/s41591-026-04428-0

Share this Kaimen Rigor review

Post on X Share on LinkedIn Share via Email

Embed this Rigor badge

<a href="https://alpha1science.com/verify/5261a62e-11cc-4dcf-a99a-0c285ca6b147" target="_blank" rel="noopener">
  <img src="https://alpha1science.com/verify/5261a62e-11cc-4dcf-a99a-0c285ca6b147/badge" alt="Kaimen Rigor review — 3.5★ (Adequate), 0 critical, 2 high issues for “Post-adjuvant chemotherapy in ctDNA-positive patients with resected colorectal cancer: a randomized phase 3 trial.”" width="440" height="104" style="max-width:100%;height:auto" />
</a>

Every embed links back to this Kaimen Rigor review.

Record fingerprint

d45fdfcfa79154d04e91870f9ae6878ee82f0fee1c4d8db57707dfb55d407796

Verify via API

Issued Aug 15, 2026Engine 7.39.0

Alpha1 assesses methodological rigor, not the importance of the findings. See how we calibrate →

Kaimen Rigor review

Kaimen Rigor reviewed

3.5 / 5

Adequate — real issues to address

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern−0.5★
ClaimsEfficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint−0.5★
ClaimsTreatment effect not shown to be clinically meaningful−0.5★

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.39.0Source: full text

Biggest issues

01Efficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint
highOverreachreviewer-assessedFull detail
The primary endpoint is disease-free survival (DFS), which is a clinical outcome, but the trial did not meet its primary endpoint. The efficacy claim is based on exploratory analyses of ctDNA clearance and subgroup analyses, which are surrogate biomarkers. The paper does not provide validated evidence linking ctDNA clearance to clinical benefit, and target engagement at the tested dose is not established.
“The ctDNA clearance rate, defined as the proportion of patients who tested negative for ctDNA at the first assessment after completion of the study treatment, was 17.2% (95% CI: 11.0–25.1) in the FTD/TPI group and 12.4% (95% CI: 7.1–19.6) in the placebo group…”
Find in source
02Treatment effect not shown to be clinically meaningful
highOverreachreviewer-assessedFull detail
The primary analysis showed a non-significant improvement in DFS (HR=0.79, P=0.107). The exploratory subgroup analysis in stage IV showed a larger effect (HR=0.53, P=0.012), but this was not adjusted for multiplicity and is hypothesis-generating. The effect size is not anchored to a minimal clinically important difference, and the primary endpoint was not met.
“Median DFS was 9.30 months with FTD/TPI and 5.55 months with placebo (hazard ratio = 0.79, 95% confidence interval: 0.60–1.05, P = 0.107), and the primary endpoint was not met.”
Find in source

Findings by category

101ArithmeticNumerical inconsistencies 302OverreachOverstated conclusions 03AuthenticityNone found 04DisclosureNone found 05AvailabilityNone found 06Copyedit4 minor suggestions

Numerical inconsistencies

1 finding · worst low

Internal contradictions in the reported numbersAssessed

Recomputed 9 tests: 9 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 6 recomputed directly from the reported test statistics, 3 via agent-written checks.

Overstated conclusions

3 findings · worst high

Efficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpointAssessed
Treatment effect not shown to be clinically meaningfulAssessed
Conclusions only partially backed by the presented evidenceAssessed

5 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: 2 only partially supported (evidence backs part of the claim; gaps or caveats remain); the rest adequately supported.

Premise concern: surrogate not validated for clinical benefit; effect size not shown to be clinically meaningful.

Data authenticity concerns

None found

Checked — nothing surfaced.

Reporting gaps

None found

Checked — nothing surfaced.

Eight Dimensions8 pass

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The paper establishes a strong scientific premise by citing prior research on ctDNA-guided therapy and FTD/TPI efficacy, and clearly links the rationale to the study objectives.

Evidence

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraphs 3-5]

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraph 5]

Discussion ¶2Find in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The paper establishes a strong scientific premise with extensive prior work and a clear rationale for the trial.

Evidence

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraphs 2-4]

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraph 4]

Sub-criteria

controlsADEQUATE

power analysisADEQUATE

blinding levelsADEQUATE

outlier handlingADEQUATE

randomization unitADEQUATE

inclusion exclusionADEQUATE

randomization methodINADEQUATE

replicate distinctionN/A

independent replicationN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

The trial design is rigorous with clear randomization, blinding, power analysis, and pre-specified inclusion/exclusion criteria; the primary analysis is appropriately defined.

Evidence

paraphrase[Methods, Trial design and interventions]

“Patients enrolled in ALTAIR were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive a 28-day course of either FTD/TPI... or placebo.”

MethodsFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

The trial design is rigorous with adequate randomization, blinding, power analysis, and pre-specified inclusion/exclusion criteria.

Evidence

paraphrase[Methods, Trial design and interventions]

“Patients enrolled in ALTAIR were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive a 28-day course of either FTD/TPI... or placebo.”

“ALTAIR was a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial”

AbstractFind in source

MethodsFind in source

Sub-criteria

demographicsADEQUATE

sex reportedADEQUATE

sex justifiedN/A

age weight healthADEQUATE

housing conditionsN/A

species strain sourceN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Sex, age, and other demographics are reported; the study includes both sexes, so sex justification is not applicable. Species/strain and housing are not applicable for a human trial.

Evidence

“Most patients were male ( n = 142, 58.4%) and under 70 years of age ( n = 155, 63.8%).”

ResultsFind in source

“Disease stage at diagnosis was distributed as follows: stage I (10/243, 4.1%), stage II (58/243, 23.9%), stage III (109/243, 44.9%) and stage IV (66/243, 24.2%).”

ResultsFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Biological variables are well reported for a human trial, including sex, age, and demographics.

Evidence

“Male | 142 (58%) | 71 (59%) | 71 (58%)”

Table 1Find in source

“<70 | 155 (64%) | 78 (64%) | 77 (63%)”

Table 1Find in source

paraphrase[Table 1]

“Primary site | Right-sided colon | 60 (26%) | 29 (24%) | 31 (25%)”

Sub-criteria

iacuc statementN/A

informed consentADEQUATE

irb ethics statementADEQUATE

regulatory complianceADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

Ethical approval is adequately reported: IRB/IEC approval at each site, written informed consent, and compliance with GCP and Declaration of Helsinki.

Evidence

EthicsFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

Ethical approvals and consent are adequately reported.

Evidence

“The protocol received approval from the institutional review board (IRB) or independent ethics committee (IEC) at each participating study site.”

EthicsFind in source

“All patients provided written informed consent, and the trial was performed in line with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.”

EthicsFind in source

“This trial was conducted in accordance with Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guidelines and adhered strictly to the study protocol.”

EthicsFind in source

Sub-criteria

mycoplasma testingN/A

reagents identifiedADEQUATE

organisms identifiedN/A

antibodies identifiedN/A

cell line authenticationN/A

software tools identifiedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The investigational product (FTD/TPI) is identified with dose and regimen; the ctDNA assay (Signatera) is identified with manufacturer; statistical software is identified.

Evidence

“FTD/TPI (administered orally at a dose of 35 mg m − 2 per dose) or placebo twice daily for five consecutive days, followed by a 2-day withdrawal.”

MethodsFind in source

“ctDNA analysis was performed using a clinically validated, personalized, tumor-informed 16-plex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) next-generation sequencing (NGS) assay (Signatera; Natera).”

MethodsFind in source

“Statistical analyses were performed using both SAS software (version 9.4; SAS Institute) and R software (version 4.4.0).”

Statistical analysisFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The investigational product (FTD/TPI) and the ctDNA assay (Signatera) are adequately identified.

Evidence

“FTD/TPI (administered orally at a dose of 35 mg m − 2 per dose) or placebo twice daily for five consecutive days, followed by a 2-day withdrawal.”

MethodsFind in source

“ctDNA analysis was performed using a clinically validated, personalized, tumor-informed 16-plex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) next-generation sequencing (NGS) assay (Signatera; Natera).”

MethodsFind in source

“Statistical analyses were performed using both SAS software (version 9.4; SAS Institute) and R software (version 4.4.0).”

Statistical analysisFind in source

Sub-criteria

tests namedADEQUATE

exact p valuesADEQUATE

effect sizes ciADEQUATE

data presentationADEQUATE

software identifiedADEQUATE

assumptions verifiedADEQUATE

mathematical plausibilityN/A

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Statistical methods are well described, including tests, software, and handling of assumptions; p-values are reported exactly; effect sizes with CIs are provided.

Evidence

“HR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.60–1.05, P = 0.107”

ResultsFind in source

“Proportional hazard assumptions for DFS were evaluated using Schoenfeld residuals and global tests.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Statistical methods are well described, with named tests, effect sizes with CIs, and software identified.

Evidence

paraphrase[Methods, Statistical analysis]

“A stratified log-rank test was employed to compare DFS between the two groups... Proportional hazard assumptions for DFS were evaluated using Schoenfeld residuals and global tests.”

“HR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.60–1.05, P = 0.107”

ResultsFind in source

“HR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.60–1.05”

ResultsFind in source

Sub-criteria

code sharingADEQUATE

accession numbersN/A

repository depositN/A

data availability statementADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Data availability statement is present with a concrete access route (managed access via corresponding author and steering committee); code is deposited in a public GitHub repository.

Evidence

Data availabilityFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Data availability statement is adequate with a managed-access route, and code is shared in a public repository.

Evidence

Data availabilityFind in source

Sub-criteria

funding coiADEQUATE

trial registrationADEQUATE

reporting guidelineADEQUATE

methods completenessADEQUATE

all outcomes reportedADEQUATE

limitations discussedADEQUATE

conclusions proportionalADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

The trial is registered, methods are complete, limitations are discussed, conclusions are proportional, and funding/COI are disclosed.

Evidence

“ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04457297”

AbstractFind in source

paraphrase[Discussion, paragraph 4]

“This study has several limitations. The primary analysis did not reach statistical significance... heterogeneity in the enrolled population... may have confounded the study outcomes.”

paraphrase[Acknowledgements and Competing interests]

“The ALTAIR study received financial support from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development... and Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., which also provided the study drug and placebo.”

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

Reporting is transparent with trial registration, CONSORT checklist, limitations, and funding/COI statements.

Evidence

“ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04457297”

AbstractFind in source

“Supplementary Tables 1 and 2, site IRB list, study protocol, statistical analysis plan, and CONSORT checklist.”

Supplementary materialFind in source

paraphrase[Discussion, paragraph 5]

“This study has several limitations. The primary analysis did not reach statistical significance...”

Registered (1 ID: ClinicalTrials.gov). Reporting guideline cited: CONSORT.

Broken references and links

None found

References checked against Crossref, OpenAlex and Retraction Watch for retractions and resolvability, plus declared data and code links probed for whether they resolve to content matching the paper.

Checked — nothing surfaced.

Checked 20 references by DOI: 19 verified — 1 no DOI (shown, not verified).

2 data/code links checked; 2 live.

Copyediting

4 minor

Wording, consistency and formatting errors that need correcting before submission.

No major wording or formatting errors. 4 minor suggestions below.

4 copyedit issues flagged: mostly consistency, clarity.

Kaimen Rigor Action ItemsFinal pass before journal submission

1.
HIGHrigor
In the Methods (Trial design and interventions), specify the randomization method (e.g., computer-generated random sequence, block size, allocation concealment) to fully satisfy the randomization_method criterion.
The current description only states 'randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio' without detailing the method, which is a minor but easily fixable reporting gap.
2.
HIGHrigor
In the Results (ctDNA clearance), reconcile the inconsistent percentages for placebo ctDNA clearance: the text states '9.6% (11/115)' but later '14 of 115 (12.2%)' for sustained clearance; verify which is correct and correct the error.
An internal contradiction in reported numbers is a validity threat that could confuse readers and may warrant a correction.
3.
MEDIUMreporting
In the Methods, add a statement on whether the trial was registered in a public registry before enrollment (the registration number is given, but the timing is not stated).
Prospective registration is a key transparency indicator; stating the timing strengthens the reporting.
4.
MEDIUMreporting
In the Discussion, add a brief note on the generalizability of the findings to non-Japanese/Taiwanese populations, as the trial was conducted only in these countries.
The current discussion does not address potential ethnic/regional limitations, which is a common reviewer concern.
5.
MEDIUMdata code
In the Data Availability section, provide a timeline for responding to data access requests to make the managed-access route more concrete.
The current statement lacks a timeframe, which reduces its practical utility for readers seeking data.
6.
MEDIUMreporting
In the Methods, report the exact version of the CONSORT checklist used (e.g., CONSORT 2010) and explicitly state adherence in the main text.
The checklist is only mentioned in supplementary; explicit adherence in the main text improves transparency.
7.
MEDIUMreporting
In the Results, report the number of patients screened for eligibility and the reasons for exclusion in the CONSORT diagram to improve transparency.
The current CONSORT flow is incomplete without screening numbers, which is a standard reporting requirement.
8.
LOWcopyedit
In the Results (Patient cohort), ensure the percentage for ACT (46.1%) is consistent with Table 1 (46%) by using consistent rounding.
Minor rounding inconsistency could be flagged by careful readers.
9.
LOWcopyedit
In the Discussion, clarify the derivation of the 24-month HR calculation (HR = 0.772 / 0.839 = 0.921) to avoid confusion.
The calculation is explained but could be clearer for readers.
10.
LOWcopyedit
In Table 1, use consistent decimal places for percentages (e.g., 66 (27.2%) instead of 66 (27%)) across the table.
Minor formatting inconsistency in percentage decimal places.

Full text (69,719 chars)Analyzed: Aug 15, 2026