Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26809472›Full record

ReviewMolecular oncology2016

Circulating tumor cells in breast cancer.

Francois-Clement Bidard, Charlotte Proudhon, Jean-Yves Pierga

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Molecular oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 100 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
100citing papers in PubMed
–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

100 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Liquid biopsy in modern medicine: advancing diagnostics from molecular insights to clinical practice.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

40 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

3 authors.

Francois-Clement BidardInstitut Curie, PSL Research University, SiRIC, Laboratory of Circulating Tumor Biomarkers, Paris, France; Institut Curie, PSL Research University, Department of Medical Oncology, Paris, France.
Charlotte ProudhonInstitut Curie, PSL Research University, SiRIC, Laboratory of Circulating Tumor Biomarkers, Paris, France.
Jean-Yves PiergaInstitut Curie, PSL Research University, SiRIC, Laboratory of Circulating Tumor Biomarkers, Paris, France; Institut Curie, PSL Research University, Department of Medical Oncology, Paris, France; Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France. Electronic address: jean-yves.pierga@curie.fr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past decade, technically reliable circulating tumor cell (CTC) detection methods allowed the collection of large datasets of CTC counts in cancer patients. These data can be used either as a dynamic prognostic biomarker or as tumor material for "liquid biopsy". Breast cancer appears to be the cancer type in which CTC have been the most extensively studied so far, with level-of-evidence-1 studies supporting the clinical validity of CTC count in both early and metastatic stage. This review summarizes and discusses the clinical results obtained in breast cancer patients, the issues faced by the molecular characterization of CTC and the biological findings about cancer biology and metastasis that were obtained from CTC.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiopsyBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansNeoplasm MetastasisNeoplastic Cells, CirculatingPrognosisBreast cancerCirculating tumor cellsMetastatic processPrognostic markers

Identifiers

PMID26809472
PMCPMC5528978

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.