ReviewCancers2021
Liquid Biopsies in Solid Cancers: Implementation in a Nordic Healthcare System.
Review in Cancers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Circulating Tumor DNA in Prostate Cancer: A Dual Perspective on Early Detection and Advanced Disease Management.Cancers · 2025Review
- Liquid Biopsy in the Clinical Management of Cancers.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Monitoring of circulating tumour DNA in advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma predicts clinical outcome and reveals disease progression earlier than radiological imaging.Molecular oncology · 2023Article
- Comprehensive ctDNA Measurements Improve Prediction of Clinical Outcomes and Enable Dynamic Tracking of Disease Progression in Advanced Pancreatic Cancer.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2023Article
- Clinical significance of circulating tumour cells and tumour marker detection in the chemotherapeutic evaluation of advanced colorectal cancer.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2022Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Liquid biopsies have emerged as a potential new diagnostic tool, providing detailed information relevant for characterization and treatment of solid cancers. We here present an overview of current evidence supporting the clinical relevance of liquid biopsy assessments. We also discuss the implementation of liquid biopsies in clinical studies and their current and future clinical role, with a special reference to the Nordic healthcare systems. Our considerations are restricted to the most established liquid biopsy specimens: circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and circulating tumor cells (CTC). Both ctDNA and CTCs have been used for prognostic stratification, treatment choices, and treatment monitoring in solid cancers. Several recent publications also support the role of ctDNA in early cancer detection. ctDNA seems to provide more robust clinically relevant information in general, whereas CTCs have the potential to answer more basic questions related to cancer biology and metastasis. Epidermal growth factor receptor-directed treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer represents a clinical setting where ctDNA already has entered the clinic. The role of liquid biopsies in treatment decisions, standardization of methods, diagnostic performance and the need for further research, as well as cost and regulatory issues were identified as factors that influence further integration in the clinic. In conclusion, substantial evidence supports the clinical utility of liquid biopsies in cancer diagnostics, but further research is still required for a more general application in clinical practice.
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.