<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>16</volume><submitter>You H</submitter><pubmed_abstract>&lt;h4>Background&lt;/h4>Detection of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has attracted growing attention for predicting postoperative breast cancer recurrence; however, the differences between the landmark and surveillance strategies remain unclear.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>We systematically searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Ovid MEDLINE databases for studies published up to April 17, 2025. Effect models were selected based on heterogeneity tests to pool diagnostic indicators, including sensitivity and specificity. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to molecular subtype, detection method, analytical strategy, and disease stage.&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>A total of 17 studies were included in the analysis. The sensitivity and specificity of the landmark strategy were 0.40 (95% CI: 0.22-0.62) and 0</pubmed_abstract><journal>Frontiers in oncology</journal><pagination>1735752</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC12909176</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><pubmed_title>Accuracy of ctDNA-based minimal residual disease detection in predicting postoperative recurrence of breast cancer: a meta-analysis.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC12909176</pmcid><pubmed_authors>He J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Tian T</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>You H</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Accuracy of ctDNA-based minimal residual disease detection in predicting postoperative recurrence of breast cancer: a meta-analysis.</name><description>&lt;h4>Background&lt;/h4>Detection of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has attracted growing attention for predicting postoperative breast cancer recurrence; however, the differences between the landmark and surveillance strategies remain unclear.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>We systematically searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Ovid MEDLINE databases for studies published up to April 17, 2025. Effect models were selected based on heterogeneity tests to pool diagnostic indicators, including sensitivity and specificity. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to molecular subtype, detection method, analytical strategy, and disease stage.&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>A total of 17 studies were included in the analysis. The sensitivity and specificity of the landmark strategy were 0.40 (95% CI: 0.22-0.62) and 0</description><dates><release>2026-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2026</publication><modification>2026-07-16T11:58:09.028Z</modification><creation>2026-07-09T10:53:10.712Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC12909176</accession><cross_references><pubmed>41710655</pubmed><doi>10.3389/fonc.2026.1735752</doi></cross_references></HashMap>