ReviewEJHaem2021
Liquid biopsy in lymphoma: Is it primed for clinical translation?
Review in EJHaem, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Liquid Biopsy in Hematologic Malignancies: Advances, Challenges, and Future Directions.Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Circulating Tumor DNA as a Biomarker of Treatment Response and Minimal Residual Disease in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: A Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Molecular measurable residual disease by immunoglobulin gene rearrangements on circulating tumor DNA predicts outcome in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.Haematologica · 2025Article
- Neurosurgical Management of Central Nervous System Lymphoma: Lessons Learnt from a Neuro-Oncology Multidisciplinary Team Approach.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Primary refractory plasmablastic lymphoma: A precision oncology approach.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Diagnostic significance of dysregulated miRNAs in T-cell malignancies and their metabolic roles.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
- Circulating tumor DNA in B-cell lymphoma: technical advances, clinical applications, and perspectives for translational research.Leukemia · 2022Review
- Rare central nervous system lymphomas.British journal of haematology · 2022Review
- 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The simultaneous growth in our understanding of lymphoma biology and the burgeoning therapeutic options has come with a renewed drive for precision-based approaches and how best to incorporate them into contemporary and future patient care. In the hunt for accurate and sensitive biomarkers, liquid biopsies, particularly circulating tumour DNA, have come to the forefront as a promising tool in multiple cancer types including lymphomas, with considerable implications for clinical practice. Liquid biopsy analyses could supplement existing tissue biopsies with distinct advantages including the minimally invasive nature and the ease with which it can be repeated during a patient's clinical journey. Circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) analyses has been and continues to be evaluated across lymphoma subtypes with potential applications as a diagnostic, disease monitoring and treatment selection tool. To make the leap into the clinic, these assays must demonstrate accuracy, reliability and a quick turnaround to be employed in the real-time clinical management of lymphoma patients. Here, we review the available ctDNA assays and discuss key practical and technical issues around improving sensitivity. We then focus on their potential roles in several lymphoma subtypes exemplified by recent studies and provide a glimpse of different features that can be analysed beyond ctDNA.
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.