Fig. 3: The relationship between mutational landscape of ctDNA and therapeutic efficacy.

A Overall frequency of top 40 gene alterations at baseline (n = 43). B Overall frequency of top 40 gene alterations between responders (n = 12) and non-responders (n = 31). C Pretreatment mean-VAF stratified by objective response (non-responders; n = 31 vs. responders; n = 12). Differences between groups were evaluated using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. D Kaplan–Meier analysis of PFS in patients stratified by ≥5% (n = 15) versus <5% (n = 28) pretreatment mean-VAF. Groups were compared using the log-rank test. E Kaplan–Meier analysis of OS in patients stratified by ≥5% (n = 15) versus <5% (n = 28) pretreatment mean-VAF. Groups were compared using the log-rank test. F Changes of mean-VAF levels before treatment and after treatment progression (n = 5 individuals). A paired t-test was used to compare the VAF levels before and after treatment progression. ns not significant; R responders; NR non-responders; PFS Progression-Free Survival; OS Overall Survival; VAF variant allele frequencies. All tests were two-sided for statistical evaluation. No adjustments for multiple comparisons were made. Each box plot shows the median as the central line, with the box boundaries representing the first and third quartiles (25th and 75th percentiles), and the whiskers indicating the range from minimum to maximum values. Source data are provided as a Source Data file.