Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32328554›Full record

ArticleJNCI cancer spectrum2019

Circulating Tumor DNA Analysis: Clinical Implications for Colorectal Cancer Patients. A Systematic Review.

Sander Bach, Nina R Sluiter, Jamie J Beagan, Joost M Mekke, Johannes C F Ket, Nicole C T van Grieken, Renske D M Steenbergen, Bauke Ylstra, Geert Kazemier, Jurriaan B Tuynman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JNCI cancer spectrum, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Future of Colorectal Cancer Screening: From One-Size-FITs-All to Tailor-Made.Frontiers in gastroenterology (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. A risk-stratified approach to colorectal cancer prevention and diagnosis.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2020
    Review
  18. Article
  19. 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

10 authors.

Sander BachDepartment of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1711-6619
Nina R SluiterDepartment of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Jamie J BeaganDepartment of Pathology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Joost M MekkeDepartment of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Johannes C F KetMedical Information Specialist/Literature Researcher Medical Library, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1909-3150
Nicole C T van GriekenDepartment of Pathology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Renske D M SteenbergenDepartment of Pathology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2327-9839
Bauke YlstraDepartment of Pathology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9479-3010
Geert KazemierDepartment of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Jurriaan B TuynmanDepartment of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLiquid biopsies could improve diagnosis, prognostication, and monitoring of colorectal cancer (CRC). Mutation, chromosomal copy number alteration, and methylation analysis in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from plasma or serum has gained great interest. However, the literature is inconsistent on preferred candidate markers, hampering a clear direction for further studies and clinical translation. This review assessed the potential of ctDNA analysis for clinical utility.

methodsA systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines was conducted up to December 3, 2018, followed by methodological quality assessment. Primary endpoints were accuracy for detection, prognostication, and monitoring.

resultsEighty-four studies were included. For CRC detection, sensitivity was 75% using ctDNA mutation analysis and up to 96% using copy number analysis. Septin 9 (

conclusionsThis comprehensive overview of ctDNA candidate markers demonstrates

Identifiers

PMID32328554
PMCPMC7050033

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.