Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29651384›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of clinical oncology2018

Cell-free DNA integrity for the monitoring of breast cancer: Future perspectives?

Navid Sobhani, Daniele Generali, Fabrizio Zanconati, Marina Bortul, Bruna Scaggiante

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of clinical oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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.

Navid SobhaniDepartment of Medical, Surgical and Health Sciences, University of Trieste, Cattinara Academic Hospital, Trieste 34149, Italy.
Daniele GeneraliDepartment of Medical, Surgical and Health Sciences, University of Trieste, Cattinara Academic Hospital, Trieste 34149, Italy.
Fabrizio ZanconatiDepartment of Medical, Surgical and Health Sciences, University of Trieste, Cattinara Academic Hospital, Trieste 34149, Italy.
Marina BortulDepartment of Medical, Surgical and Health Sciences, University of Trieste, Cattinara Academic Hospital, Trieste 34149, Italy.
Bruna ScaggianteDepartment of Life Sciences, University of Trieste, Trieste 34127, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Breast cancer (BC) is the most common cancer and the second cause of death in women worldwide. Therapeutic options are increasing, but the response to treatments is not always efficient and the risk of recurrence covers decades. In this perspective, the need to have a proper follow-up for the therapeutic responses and for anticipating recurrence it is urgent in the clinical setting. Liquid biopsy provides the basic principle for a non-invasive method for the routinely monitoring of BC. However, due to the heterogeneity of tumors during onset and progression, the search for tumor DNA mutations of targeted genes in plasma/serum is a limiting factor. A possible approach overtaking this problem comes from the measurement of cell-free DNA integrity, which is an independent factor from the mutational status and theoretically is representative of all tumors. This review summarizes the state-of-the-art of cell-free DNA integrity researches in BC, the controversies and the future perspective.

Indexed as

ALU sequencesBreast cancercfDNA integrityLINE-1 sequencesLiquid biopsy

Identifiers

PMID29651384
PMCPMC5893994

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.