Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29430504›Full record

ReviewBladder cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2018

Liquid Biopsy-Analysis of Circulating Tumor DNA (ctDNA) in Bladder Cancer.

Tilman Todenhöfer, Werner J Struss, Roland Seiler, Alexander William Wyatt, Peter C Black

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Bladder cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Fibroblast growth factor receptor 1 inhibition suppresses pancreatic cancer chemoresistance and chemotherapy-driven aggressiveness.Drug resistance updates : reviews and commentaries in antimicrobial and anticancer chemotherapy · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Can urinary biomarkers replace cystoscopy?World journal of urology · 2019
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

5 authors.

Tilman TodenhöferDepartment of Urology, University Hospital, Tübingen, Germany.
Werner J StrussVancouver Prostate Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Roland SeilerInselspital Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Alexander William WyattVancouver Prostate Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Peter C BlackVancouver Prostate Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent advances in DNA profiling techniques have enabled sensitive detection of tumor-associated genomic aberrations in peripheral blood. This type of minimally-invasive molecular interrogation has the potential to guide subsequent treatment selection. The potential utility of ctDNA in bladder cancer (BC) is bolstered by the high somatic mutation rate, meaning that very small numbers of genes or target regions can be informative. First reports indicate that analysis of ctDNA may represent a sensitive method for disease surveillance in patients with different stages of BC. Moreover, recent evidence suggests that ctDNA analysis reveals previously unknown genomic alterations in metastatic patients. Since some of these gene alterations represent therapeutic targets, ctDNA analysis provides an attractive tool to guide individualized therapy in BC.

Indexed as

BiomarkerbloodcfDNActDNAnext generation sequencingPCR

Identifiers

PMID29430504
PMCPMC5798499

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.