Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35915225›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Clinical oncology2022

Circulating tumour DNA - looking beyond the blood.

Ann Tivey, Matt Church, Dominic Rothwell, Caroline Dive, Natalie Cook

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Clinical oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 187 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
187citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
28.6field-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

187 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 307 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Diagnostic accuracy of next-generation sequencing (NGS) for identifying actionable mutations in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

127 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ann TiveyDivision of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5389-3741
Matt ChurchThe Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5825-3241
Dominic RothwellDivision of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Caroline DiveDivision of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Natalie CookDivision of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. natalie.cook17@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2606-1082
University of Manchester · GBCancer Research UK Manchester Institute · GBThe Christie NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK A25254Cancer Research UK A27412Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past decade, various liquid biopsy techniques have emerged as viable alternatives to the analysis of traditional tissue biopsy samples. Such surrogate 'biopsies' offer numerous advantages, including the relative ease of obtaining serial samples and overcoming the issues of interpreting one or more small tissue samples that might not reflect the entire tumour burden. To date, the majority of research in the area of liquid biopsies has focused on blood-based biomarkers, predominantly using plasma-derived circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA). However, ctDNA can also be obtained from various non-blood sources and these might offer unique advantages over plasma ctDNA. In this Review, we discuss advances in the analysis of ctDNA from non-blood sources, focusing on urine, cerebrospinal fluid, and pleural or peritoneal fluid, but also consider other sources of ctDNA. We discuss how these alternative sources can have a distinct yet complementary role to that of blood ctDNA analysis and consider various technical aspects of non-blood ctDNA assay development. We also reflect on the settings in which non-blood ctDNA can offer distinct advantages over plasma ctDNA and explore some of the challenges associated with translating these alternative assays from academia into clinical use.

Indexed as

Circulating Tumor DNABiomarkers, TumorBiopsyHumansLiquid BiopsyBiomarkers, TumorCirculating Tumor DNA

Identifiers

PMID35915225
PMCPMC9341152
OpenAlexW4289341733

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.