ArticleCancers2021
A Real-World Application of Liquid Biopsy in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: The Poseidon Study.
Article 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Unequal access to liquid biopsy in colorectal cancer care: a cross-sectional survey of clinicians across hospital tiers in Zhejiang, China.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Article
- Navigating the Landscape of Liquid Biopsy in Colorectal Cancer: Current Insights and Future Directions.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Characterization of Plasma Cell-Free DNA Variants as of Tumor or Clonal Hematopoiesis Origin in 16,812 Advanced Cancer Patients.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2025Article
- Dynamics of RAS Mutations in Liquid Biopsies in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients-Case Series and Literature Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
- Review
- The ideal reporting ofPathologica · 2023Review
- Microsatellite Instable Colorectal Adenocarcinoma Diagnostics: The Advent of Liquid Biopsy Approaches.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFirst-line decision making is the key to the successful care of mCRC patients and
methodsA monoinstitutional prospective head-to-head comparison of LB versus (vs.) STB testing was performed in a real-world setting. Selection criteria included: mCRC diagnosis with unknown
resultsA total of 33 mCRC patients were included. Mean T1 and T2 was 7 and 22 days (d), respectively (
conclusionsFaster turnaround time, high concordance and accuracy are three key points supporting the adoption of LB in routinary mCRC care, in particular when decision on first-line therapy is urgent and tissue recovery from external centers may require a long time. Results should be interpreted with caution in LB wild-type cases with low tumor burden.
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.