SynthesisBMC cancer2019
Accuracy of analysis of cfDNA for detection of single nucleotide variants and copy number variants in breast cancer.
Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Circulating Tumor DNA in Cervical Cancer: Clinical Utility and Medico-Legal Perspectives.Oncology research · 2025Review
- The Clinical Utility of Droplet Digital PCR for Profiling Circulating Tumor DNA in Breast Cancer Patients.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Phase 1 multicenter, dose-expansion study of ARX788 as monotherapy in HER2-positive advanced gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma.Cell reports. Medicine · 2022Article
- Cell-Free DNA Variables including Gene Mutations in CA15-3 Normal Breast Cancer Reflect Prognosis.Disease markers · 2022Article
- Application value of conventional ultrasound combined with shear wave elastography in diagnosing triple negative breast cancer.Gland surgery · 2021Article
- The Polemic Diagnostic Role ofCancers · 2020Review
- Article
- Advances in the Detection Technologies and Clinical Applications of Circulating Tumor DNA in Metastatic Breast Cancer.Cancer management and research · 2020Review
- Immuno-Oncology Biomarkers for Personalized Immunotherapy in Breast Cancer.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2020Review
- Perspective: Cellular and Molecular Profiling Technologies in Personalized Oncology.Journal of personalized medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGene variants are dependable and sensitive biomarkers for target-specific therapies in breast cancer (BC). However, detection of mutations within tissues has many limitations. Plasma circulating free DNA (cfDNA) has been reported in many studies as an alternative tool for detection of mutations. But the diagnostic accuracy of cfDNA for most mutations in BC needs to be reviewed. This study was designed to perform comparative assessment of the diagnostic performance of cfDNA and DNA extracted from tissues for detection of single nucleotide variants (SNV) and copy number variants (CNV).
methodsTrue-positive (TP), false-positive (FP), false-negative (FN), and true-negative (TN) values were extracted from each selected study. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were calculated. Subgroup analysis and single study omitted analysis were performed to quantify and explain the study heterogeneity.
resultsTwenty eligible studies that involved 1055 cases were included in this meta-analysis. SNV studies in early breast cancer (EBC) subgroup are not suitable for meta-analysis owing to high heterogeneity. However, in advanced breast cancer (ABC) subgroup, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of detection of SNVs were 0.78 (0.71-0.84) and 0.92 (0.87-0.95), respectively. The summary receiver operative curve (SROC) exhibited an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.91(0.88-0.93). The pooled results of studies involving subgroups of PIK3CA, TP53, and ESR1 indicate that the diagnostic value of different genes is different, such as AUC for PIK3CA and TP53 were reported to be 0.96 (0.94-0.98) and 0.94 (0.91-0.95), respectively, and ESR1 had the lowest diagnostic value of 0.80 (0.76-0.83). Owing to the low sensitivity and AUC in the cases of CNV, there is no value for cfDNA-based detection of CNV based on insufficient amount of CNV data.
conclusionThis meta-analysis suggests that the detection of gene mutations in cfDNA have adequate diagnostic accuracy and can be used as an alternative to the tumor tissue for detection of SNV but not for CNV in BC yet.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.