Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32203306›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Urology2020

Harnessing cell-free DNA: plasma circulating tumour DNA for liquid biopsy in genitourinary cancers.

Manuel Caitano Maia, Meghan Salgia, Sumanta K Pal

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Frontiers in oncology · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Manuel Caitano MaiaDepartment of Medical Oncology, Centro de Oncologia do Paraná, Curitiba, PR, Brazil. manuel@centrodeoncologia.com.
Meghan SalgiaDepartment of Medical Oncology & Experimental Therapeutics, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, CA, USA.
Sumanta K PalDepartment of Medical Oncology & Experimental Therapeutics, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, CA, USA.
City of Hope · USInstituto de Oncologia do Paraná · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the era of precision oncology, liquid biopsy techniques, especially the use of plasma circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) analysis, represent a paradigm shift in the use of genomic biomarkers with considerable implications for clinical practice. Compared with tissue-based tumour DNA analysis, plasma ctDNA is more convenient to test, more readily accessible, faster to obtain and less invasive, minimizing procedure-related risks and offering the opportunity to perform serial monitoring. Additionally, genomic profiles of ctDNA have been shown to reflect tumour heterogeneity, which has important implications for the identification of resistant clones and selection of targeted therapy well before clinical and radiographic changes occur. Moreover, plasma ctDNA testing can also be applied to cancer screening, risk stratification and quantification of minimal residual disease. These features provide an unprecedented opportunity for early treatment of patients, improving the chances of treatment success.

Indexed as

Cell-Free Nucleic AcidsClinical Trials as TopicHumansKidney NeoplasmsLiquid BiopsyMaleProstatic NeoplasmsUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsCell-Free Nucleic Acids

Identifiers

PMID32203306
OpenAlexW3011703686

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.