Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34830891›Full record

ArticleCancers2021

Diagnostic Accuracy of Liquid Biopsy in Endometrial Cancer.

Marta Łukasiewicz, Krzysztof Pastuszak, Sylwia Łapińska-Szumczyk, Robert Różański, Sjors G J G In 't Veld, Michał Bieńkowski, Tomasz Stokowy, Magdalena Ratajska, Myron G Best, Thomas Würdinger and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

13 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Marta ŁukasiewiczLaboratory of Translational Oncology, Intercollegiate Faculty of Biotechnology, Medical University of Gdańsk, 80-211 Gdańsk, Poland.
Krzysztof PastuszakLaboratory of Translational Oncology, Intercollegiate Faculty of Biotechnology, Medical University of Gdańsk, 80-211 Gdańsk, Poland.
Sylwia Łapińska-SzumczykDepartment of Gynecology, Gyneacological Oncology and Gynecological Endocrinology, Medical University of Gdańsk, 80-211 Gdańsk, Poland.
Robert RóżańskiDepartment of Gynecology, Gyneacological Oncology and Gynecological Endocrinology, Medical University of Gdańsk, 80-211 Gdańsk, Poland.
Sjors G J G In 't VeldDepartment of Neurosurgery, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3680-8437
Michał BieńkowskiDepartment of Pathomorphology, Medical University of Gdańsk, 80-211 Gdańsk, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-9291-3928
Tomasz StokowyDepartment of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, 7800 Bergen, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-0017-8338
Magdalena RatajskaDepartment of Biology and Medical Genetics, Medical University of Gdańsk, 80-211 Gdańsk, Poland.
Myron G BestDepartment of Neurosurgery, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Thomas WürdingerDepartment of Neurosurgery, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Anna J ŻaczekLaboratory of Translational Oncology, Intercollegiate Faculty of Biotechnology, Medical University of Gdańsk, 80-211 Gdańsk, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-1482-6068
Anna SupernatLaboratory of Translational Oncology, Intercollegiate Faculty of Biotechnology, Medical University of Gdańsk, 80-211 Gdańsk, Poland.
Jacek JassemDepartment of Oncology and Radiotherapy, Medical University of Gdańsk, 80-211 Gdańsk, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-8875-6747
Gdańsk Medical University · PLAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLGdańsk University of Technology · PLUniversity of Bergen · NO

Funding

Medical University of Gdansk Statutary work ST-23/02-0023/07
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLiquid biopsy is a minimally invasive collection of a patient body fluid sample. In oncology, they offer several advantages compared to traditional tissue biopsies. However, the potential of this method in endometrial cancer (EC) remains poorly explored. We studied the utility of tumor educated platelets (TEPs) and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) for preoperative EC diagnosis, including histology determination.

methodsTEPs from 295 subjects (53 EC patients, 38 patients with benign gynecologic conditions, and 204 healthy women) were RNA-sequenced. DNA sequencing data were obtained for 519 primary tumor tissues and 16 plasma samples. Artificial intelligence was applied to sample classification.

resultsPlatelet-dedicated classifier yielded AUC of 97.5% in the test set when discriminating between healthy subjects and cancer patients. However, the discrimination between endometrial cancer and benign gynecologic conditions was more challenging, with AUC of 84.1%. ctDNA-dedicated classifier discriminated primary tumor tissue samples with AUC of 96% and ctDNA blood samples with AUC of 69.8%.

conclusionsLiquid biopsies show potential in EC diagnosis. Both TEPs and ctDNA profiles coupled with artificial intelligence constitute a source of useful information. Further work involving more cases is warranted.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencecirculating tumor DNAendometrial cancerliquid biopsymolecular markerstumor educated platelets

Identifiers

PMID34830891
PMCPMC8616122
OpenAlexW3212844442

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.