ArticleCancer research2020
Traditional Diagnostics versus Disruptive Technology: The Role of the Pathologist in the Era of Liquid Biopsy.
Article in Cancer research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perspectives in educating molecular pathologists on liquid biopsy: Toward integrative, equitable, and decentralized precision oncology.Molecular oncology · 2026Review
- Beyond the Microscope: Integrating Liquid Biopsies into the Molecular Pathology Era of Endometrial Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Imaging and AI based chromatin biomarkers for diagnosis and therapy evaluation from liquid biopsies.NPJ precision oncology · 2023Article
- Next-Generation Sequencing with Liquid Biopsies from Treatment-Naïve Non-Small Cell Lung Carcinoma Patients.Cancers · 2021Review
- Profiling Colorectal Cancer in the Landscape Personalized Testing-Advantages of Liquid Biopsy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Precision medicine in cancer care is predicated on access to several fundamental pieces of data: (i) a precise tumor diagnosis, (ii) accurate stage classification, and (iii) protein or molecular biomarkers that predict efficacy of targeted therapies. For all patients with cancer, these data points are generated by obtaining a tumor sample and subjecting it to analysis by a pathologist and, when appropriate, a molecular pathologist. While tumor diagnosis and pathologic staging (gross and microscopic examination of the primary tumor and draining lymph nodes) require the infrastructure and expertise of an anatomic pathology program, the advent of "liquid biopsy" has driven a shift in molecular biomarker testing away from local pathology laboratories and into high-throughput, centralized (and often for-profit) laboratories. What does this mean for patient care? How is the role of the pathologist affected? What are the implications for integration of diagnostic information and ultimately for appropriate therapy selection? This article will consider the current testing landscape, address current challenges in the use of liquid biopsy in clinical practice, and consider ways the pathologist should be involved in interpreting liquid biopsy data in the context of the patient's cancer diagnosis and stage.
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.