Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23712187›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Clinical oncology2013

Circulating tumour cells and cell-free DNA as tools for managing breast cancer.

Leticia De Mattos-Arruda, Javier Cortes, Libero Santarpia, Ana Vivancos, Josep Tabernero, Jorge S Reis-Filho, Joan Seoane

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Clinical oncology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 84 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
84citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

84 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. A Novel Sensitive Technique to DetectCancer innovation · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

24 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Leticia De Mattos-ArrudaVall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Paseo Vall d'Hebron 119-129, 08035 Barcelona, Spain. ldmattos@ir.vhebron.net
Javier Cortes
Libero Santarpia
Ana Vivancos
Josep Tabernero
Jorge S Reis-Filho
Joan Seoane

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Circulating blood biomarkers promise to become non-invasive real-time surrogates for tumour tissue-based biomarkers. Circulating biomarkers have been investigated as tools for breast cancer diagnosis, the dissection of breast cancer biology and its genetic and clinical heterogeneity, prognostication, prediction and monitoring of therapeutic response and resistance. Circulating tumour cells and cell-free plasma DNA have been analysed in retrospective studies, and the assessment of these biomarkers is being incorporated into clinical trials. As the scope of breast cancer intratumour genetic heterogeneity unravels, the development of robust and standardized methods for the assessment of circulating biomarkers will be essential for the realization of the potentials of personalized medicine. In this Review, we discuss the current status of blood-born biomarkers as surrogates for tissue-based biomarkers, and their burgeoning impact on the management of patients with breast cancer.

Indexed as

Cell-Free SystemBreast NeoplasmsDNA, NeoplasmFemaleHumansNeoplastic Cells, CirculatingDNA, Neoplasm

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.