Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35966579›Full record

ReviewTheranostics2022

Extracellular Vesicles and Circulating Tumour Cells - complementary liquid biopsies or standalone concepts?

Artur Słomka, Bingduo Wang, Tudor Mocan, Adelina Horhat, Arnulf G Willms, Ingo G H Schmidt-Wolf, Christian P Strassburg, Maria A Gonzalez-Carmona, Veronika Lukacs-Kornek, Miroslaw T Kornek

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Theranostics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. PeerJ · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Monocyte derived large extracellular vesicles in polytrauma.Journal of extracellular biology · 2024
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Artur SłomkaDepartment of Pathophysiology, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Ludwik Rydygier Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz, 85-067 Bydgoszcz, Poland.
Bingduo WangDepartment of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital Bonn of the Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-University, 53127 Bonn, Germany.
Tudor MocanOctavian Fodor Institute for Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Iuliu Haţieganu, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 400162 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Adelina HorhatOctavian Fodor Institute for Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Iuliu Haţieganu, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 400162 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Arnulf G WillmsInstitute of Molecular Medicine & Experimental Immunology, University Hospital Bonn of the Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-University, 53127 Bonn, Germany.
Ingo G H Schmidt-WolfDepartment of Integrated Oncology, Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO), University Hospital Bonn of the Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-University, 53127 Bonn, Germany.
Christian P StrassburgDepartment of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital Bonn of the Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-University, 53127 Bonn, Germany.
Maria A Gonzalez-CarmonaDepartment of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital Bonn of the Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-University, 53127 Bonn, Germany.
Veronika Lukacs-KornekInstitute of Molecular Medicine & Experimental Immunology, University Hospital Bonn of the Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-University, 53127 Bonn, Germany.
Miroslaw T KornekDepartment of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital Bonn of the Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-University, 53127 Bonn, Germany.
University Hospital Bonn · DEIuliu Hațieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy · RONicolaus Copernicus University · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Liquid biopsies do promise a lot, but are they keeping it? In the past decade, additional novel biomarkers qualified to be called like that, of which, some took necessary hurdles resulting in FDA approval and clinical use. Some others are since a while around, well known and were once regarded to be a game changer in cancer diagnosis or cancer screening. But, during their clinical use limitations were observed from statistical significance and questions raised regarding their robustness, that eventually led to be dropped from associated clinical guidelines for certain applications including cancer diagnosis. The purpose of this review isn't to give a broad overview of all current liquid biopsy as biomarkers, weight them and promise a brighter future in cancer prevention, but rather to take a deeper look on two of those who do qualify to be called liquid biopsies now or then. These two are probably of greatest interest conceptually and methodically, and likely have the highest chances to be in clinical use soon, with a portfolio extension over their original conceptual usage. We aim to dig deeper beyond cancer diagnosis or cancer screening. Actually, we aim to review in depth extracellular vesicles (EVs) and compare with circulating tumour cells (CTCs). The latter methodology is partially FDA approved and in clinical use. We will lay out similarities as taking advantage of surface antigens on EVs and CTCs in case of characterization and quantification. But drawing readers' attention to downstream application based on capture/isolation methodology and simply on their overall nature, here apparently being living material eventually recoverable as CTCs are vs. dead material with transient effects on recipient cell as in case of EVs. All this we try to bring in perspective, compare and conclude towards which future direction we are aiming for, or should aim for. Do we announce a winner between CTCs vs EVs? No, but we provide good reasons to intensify research on them.

Indexed as

Extracellular VesiclesNeoplastic Cells, CirculatingBiomarkers, TumorCell CountHumansLiquid BiopsyBiomarkers, TumorbiomarkerCTCectosomesexosomesextracellular vesiclesliquid biopsymicrovesiclespersonalized medicine

Identifiers

PMID35966579
PMCPMC9373826
OpenAlexW4291134585

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.