ReviewFrontiers in oncology2022
Comparison of the diagnostic value of liquid biopsy in leptomeningeal metastases: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Using cell free DNA (cfDNA) and RNA (cfRNA) in the diagnosis and monitoring of primary and metastatic CNS tumors.The journal of liquid biopsy · 2026Article
- Preanalytical variables and analytes in liquid biopsy approach for brain tumors: A comprehensive review and recommendations from the RANO Group and the Brain Liquid Biopsy Consortium.Neuro-oncology · 2025Review
- Biological profile of breast cancer brain metastasis.Acta neuropathologica communications · 2025Review
- Article
- 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Brain metastases (BM) include brain parenchymal (BPM) and leptomeningeal metastases (LM), which are associated with a poor prognosis and high mortality rate. Early and accurate diagnosis and timely, effective treatment are crucial for improving the overall survival of LM patients. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biopsy technology has attracted widespread attention for its diagnostic value in diverse cancers, including LM. We summarized studies to compare the potential diagnostic value of CSF liquid biopsy techniques in BM patients with meta-analysis. Methods: The study protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO, registration number CRD42022373263. We obtained the literature on liquid biopsy for BM from 7 databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Data knowledge service platform). Then, a systematic review of those studies was performed according to PRISMA criteria. Results: Nine publications have been obtained, and we found CSF liquid biopsy techniques to be more suitable for diagnosing LM. We analyzed the sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) of CSF liquid biopsy. The overall sensitivity, specificity, and AUC of CSF liquid biopsy in the diagnosis of LM were 0.65 (95% CI: 0.48 - 0.79), 0.70 (95% CI: 0.50 - 0.86), and 0.69, respectively. Then, we compared the diagnostic advantages of CSF liquid biopsy techniques and CSF cytology in LM. The results show that CSF liquid biopsy is superior to CSF cytology in LM diagnosis. Conclusions: Our meta-analysis suggested that CSF liquid biopsy is more suitable for LM diagnosis and has higher accuracy than CSF cytology.
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.