ReviewCancers2020
The Diagnostic and Prognostic Value of a Liquid Biopsy for Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cancers, 2020. 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Role of liquid biopsy in the multimodal assessment and treatment of esophageal cancer: a surgical perspective.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- PD-L1-positive circulating tumor cells associate with tumor malignancy and impaired circulating immunity in patients with gastrointestinal tumors.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Long-term clinical outcome of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery.American journal of cancer research · 2025Article
- Liquid biopsy in gastrointestinal oncology: clinical applications and translational integration of ctDNA, CTCs, and sEVs.Oncology reviews · 2025Review
- Liquid Biopsy in the Clinical Management of Cancers.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Article
- New Trends in Esophageal Cancer Management.Cancers · 2021Article
- Article
- The Role of Circulating Tumor Cells in Chemoresistant Metastatic Breast Cancer.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- Circulating Tumor Cells in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma - Mini Review.Cancer management and research · 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
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Esophageal cancer is among the most aggressive diseases, and circulating tumor cells (CTCs) have been recognized as novel biomarkers for various cancers over the past two decades, including esophageal cancer. CTCs might provide crucial clinical information for predicting cancer prognosis, monitoring therapeutic responses or recurrences, or elucidating the mechanism of metastasis. The isolation of CTCs is among the applications of a "liquid biopsy". There are various technologies for liquid biopsies, and they are classified into two main methods: cytometric or non-cytometric techniques. Here, we review a total of 57 eligible articles to summarize various technologies for the use of a liquid biopsy in esophageal cancer and perform a meta-analysis to assess the clinical utility of liquid biopsies as a prognostic and diagnostic biomarker technique. For prognostic evaluation, the pooled hazard ratio in the cytometric assay is relatively higher than that of the non-cytometric assay. On the other hand, a combination of multiple molecules, using a non-cytometric assay, might be a favorable biomarker technique for the early diagnosis of esophageal cancer. Although determining strong evidence for a biomarker by using a liquid biopsy is still challenging, our meta-analysis might be a milestone for the future development of liquid biopsies in use with esophageal cancer.
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.