Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34071230›Full record

ReviewCancers2021

Urine as a Source of Liquid Biopsy for Cancer.

Masanori Oshi, Vijayashree Murthy, Hideo Takahashi, Michelle Huyser, Maiko Okano, Yoshihisa Tokumaru, Omar M Rashid, Ryusei Matsuyama, Itaru Endo, Kazuaki Takabe

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 73 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
73citing papers in PubMed
7.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

73 citing papers in PubMed, 119 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. A Practical, Noninvasive Urine Collection Method for Mice for Large Cohort Preclinical Studies.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Advances in laboratory medicine · 2025
    Article
  20. Review

13 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Masanori OshiBreast Surgery, Department of Surgical Oncology, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY 14263, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1404-1570
Vijayashree MurthyBreast Surgery, Department of Surgical Oncology, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY 14263, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2353-8132
Hideo TakahashiHepatopancreatobiliary (HPB), Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Mount Sinai South Nassau, One South Central Avenue, Valley Stream, NY 11580, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3135-9457
Michelle HuyserBreast Surgery, Department of Surgical Oncology, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY 14263, USA.
Maiko OkanoDepartment of Breast Surgery, Fukushima Medical University, Fukushima 960-1295, Japan.ORCID 0000-0003-1118-8494
Yoshihisa TokumaruBreast Surgery, Department of Surgical Oncology, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY 14263, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2481-7739
Omar M RashidMichael and Dianne Bienes Comprehensive Cancer Center, Department of Surgery, Holy Cross Hospital, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308, USA.
Ryusei MatsuyamaDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Yokohama City University School of Medicine, Yokohama 236-0004, Japan.
Itaru EndoDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Yokohama City University School of Medicine, Yokohama 236-0004, Japan.
Kazuaki TakabeBreast Surgery, Department of Surgical Oncology, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY 14263, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6435-4241
Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center · USYokohama City University · JPFukushima Medical University · JPHoly Cross Hospital · US

Funding

Postdoctoral Research Training in Surgical OncologyT32CA108456 · NCI · ROSWELL PARK CANCER INSTITUTE CORP · PI YENDAMURI, SAIKRISHNA · 2006 to 2020
$2.8M
NCI NIH HHS 5T32CA108456
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tissue biopsy is the gold standard for diagnosis and morphological and immunohistochemical analyses to characterize cancer. However, tissue biopsy usually requires an invasive procedure, and it can be challenging depending on the condition of the patient and the location of the tumor. Even liquid biopsy analysis of body fluids such as blood, saliva, gastric juice, sweat, tears and cerebrospinal fluid may require invasive procedures to obtain samples. Liquid biopsy can be applied to circulating tumor cells (CTCs) or nucleic acids (NAs) in blood. Recently, urine has gained popularity due to its less invasive sampling, ability to easily repeat samples, and ability to follow tumor evolution in real-time, making it a powerful tool for diagnosis and treatment monitoring in cancer patients. With the development and advancements in extraction methods of urinary substances, urinary NAs have been found to be closely related to carcinogenesis, metastasis, and therapeutic response, not only in urological cancers but also in non-urological cancers. This review mainly highlights the components of urine liquid biopsy and their utility and limitations in oncology, especially in non-urological cancers.

Indexed as

DNAliquid biopsymicroRNAmRNAsncRNAurineurine liquid biopsy

Identifiers

PMID34071230
PMCPMC8199052
OpenAlexW3164358516

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.