Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35805043›Full record

ReviewCancers2022

Liquid Biopsy in Prostate Cancer Management-Current Challenges and Future Perspectives.

Felice Crocetto, Gianluca Russo, Erika Di Zazzo, Pasquale Pisapia, Benito Fabio Mirto, Alessandro Palmieri, Francesco Pepe, Claudio Bellevicine, Alessandro Russo, Evelina La Civita and 4 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 73 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
73citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

14 authors.

Felice CrocettoDepartment of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples "Federico II", 80131 Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4315-7660
Gianluca RussoDepartment of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, 80131 Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2698-9470
Erika Di ZazzoDepartment of Medicine and Health Sciences "V. Tiberio", University of Molise, 86100 Campobasso, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-7621-488X
Pasquale PisapiaDepartment of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, 80131 Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-6429-0620
Benito Fabio MirtoDepartment of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples "Federico II", 80131 Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4431-0871
Alessandro PalmieriDepartment of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples "Federico II", 80131 Naples, Italy.
Francesco PepeDepartment of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, 80131 Naples, Italy.
Claudio BellevicineDepartment of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, 80131 Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7479-6457
Alessandro RussoMedical Oncology Unit, Papardo Hospital, 98121 Messina, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3365-1972
Evelina La CivitaDepartment of Translational Medical Sciences, University of Naples "Federico II", 80131 Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-0543-9031
Daniela TerraccianoDepartment of Translational Medical Sciences, University of Naples "Federico II", 80131 Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4296-429X
Umberto MalapelleDepartment of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, 80131 Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3211-9957
Giancarlo TronconeDepartment of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, 80131 Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1630-5805
Biagio BaroneDepartment of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples "Federico II", 80131 Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4884-132X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although appreciable attempts in screening and diagnostic approaches have been achieved, prostate cancer (PCa) remains a widespread malignancy, representing the second leading cause of cancer-related death in men. Drugs currently used in PCa therapy initially show a potent anti-tumor effect, but frequently induce resistance and PCa progresses toward metastatic castration-resistant forms (mCRPC), virtually incurable. Liquid biopsy has emerged as an attractive and promising strategy complementary to invasive tissue biopsy to guide PCa diagnosis and treatment. Liquid biopsy shows the ability to represent the tumor microenvironment, allow comprehensive information and follow-up the progression of the tumor, enabling the development of different treatment strategies as well as permitting the monitoring of therapy response. Liquid biopsy, indeed, is endowed with a significant potential to modify PCa management. Several blood biomarkers could be analyzed for diagnostic, prognostic and predictive purposes, including circulating tumor cells (CTCs), extracellular vesicles (EVs), circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and RNA (ctRNA). In addition, several other body fluids may be adopted (i.e., urine, sperm, etc.) beyond blood. This review dissects recent advancements and future perspectives of liquid biopsies, highlighting their strength and weaknesses in PCa management.

Indexed as

cancer biomarkerscell-free DNAcell-free nucleic acidscell-free RNAcirculating nucleic acidscirculating tumor cellsextracellular vesiclesliquid biopsyprostate cancer

Identifiers

PMID35805043
PMCPMC9265840

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.