Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36461757›Full record

SynthesisUnited European gastroenterology journal2023

Gastric cancer detection by non-blood-based liquid biopsies: A systematic review looking into the last decade of research.

Catarina Lopes, Jéssica Chaves, Raquel Ortigão, Mário Dinis-Ribeiro, Carina Pereira

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in United European gastroenterology journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Exploring the Link betweenAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. The Human Gastric Juice: A Promising Source for Gastric Cancer Biomarkers.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Catarina LopesPrecancerous Lesions and Early Cancer Management Group, Research Center of IPO Porto (CI-IPOP)/Rise@CI-IPOP (Health Research Group), Portuguese Institute of Oncology of Porto (IPO Porto)/Porto Comprehensive Cancer Center (Porto.CCC), Porto, Portugal.
Jéssica ChavesPrecancerous Lesions and Early Cancer Management Group, Research Center of IPO Porto (CI-IPOP)/Rise@CI-IPOP (Health Research Group), Portuguese Institute of Oncology of Porto (IPO Porto)/Porto Comprehensive Cancer Center (Porto.CCC), Porto, Portugal.
Raquel OrtigãoPrecancerous Lesions and Early Cancer Management Group, Research Center of IPO Porto (CI-IPOP)/Rise@CI-IPOP (Health Research Group), Portuguese Institute of Oncology of Porto (IPO Porto)/Porto Comprehensive Cancer Center (Porto.CCC), Porto, Portugal.
Mário Dinis-RibeiroPrecancerous Lesions and Early Cancer Management Group, Research Center of IPO Porto (CI-IPOP)/Rise@CI-IPOP (Health Research Group), Portuguese Institute of Oncology of Porto (IPO Porto)/Porto Comprehensive Cancer Center (Porto.CCC), Porto, Portugal.
Carina PereiraPrecancerous Lesions and Early Cancer Management Group, Research Center of IPO Porto (CI-IPOP)/Rise@CI-IPOP (Health Research Group), Portuguese Institute of Oncology of Porto (IPO Porto)/Porto Comprehensive Cancer Center (Porto.CCC), Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-4302-2501
Instituto Português de Oncologia Francisco Gentil · PTUniversidade do Porto · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gastric cancer (GC) screening is arguable in most Western countries. Liquid biopsies are a great promise to answer the unmet need for less invasive diagnostic biomarkers in GC. Thus, we aimed at systematically reviewing the current knowledge on liquid biopsy-based biomarkers in GC screening. A systematic search on PubMed/MEDLINE and Scopus databases was performed on published articles reporting the use of non-blood specimen (saliva, gastric juice [GJ], urine and stool) on GC diagnosis. 3208 records were retrieved by June 2022. After removal of duplicate records, 2379 abstracts were screened, and 84 full texts included in this systematic review. More than 90% of studies were reported on Asian populations. Overall, 9 studies explored stool-, 12 saliva-, and 29 urine-derived biomarkers for GC detection. Additionally, 37 studies, representing the majority, analyzed GJ, focusing on nucleic acid molecules. Several miRNAs and lncRNA molecules have been associated with GC risk, particularly miR-21 (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.94-1.00). Considering salivary biomarkers, the best described model in validation sets included the soybean agglutinin and Vicia villosa agglutinin lectins (AUC = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.80-0.99). Most studies in urine carried out metabolomic approaches, with two discriminatory models presenting AUC values superior to 0.97. This systematic review emphasizes the potential role of non-blood-based biomarkers, although further validation, particularly in Western countries, is mandatory, namely for non-invasive screening and/or monitoring, as well as the use of GJ as a tool to enhance upper gastrointestinal endoscopy accuracy.

Indexed as

MicroRNAsStomach NeoplasmsBiomarkers, TumorHumansLiquid BiopsyBiomarkers, TumorMicroRNAsfecesgastric juicesalivastomach neoplasmsurine

Identifiers

PMID36461757
PMCPMC9892482
OpenAlexW4310644248

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.