Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36977797›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Urology2023

Circulating and urinary tumour DNA in urothelial carcinoma - upper tract, lower tract and metastatic disease.

Kyle M Rose, Heather L Huelster, Joshua J Meeks, Bishoy M Faltas, Guru P Sonpavde, Seth P Lerner, Jeffrey S Ross, Philippe E Spiess, G Daniel Grass, Rohit K Jain and 5 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Urology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 35 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
11.7field-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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Kyle M RoseDepartment of Genitourinary Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7728-1144
Heather L HuelsterDepartment of Genitourinary Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5411-3148
Joshua J MeeksDepartment of Urology, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Bishoy M FaltasDepartment of Hematology/Oncology, Weill-Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Guru P SonpavdeDepartment of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1010-9611
Seth P LernerDepartment of Urology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Jeffrey S RossFoundation Medicine, Inc, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Philippe E SpiessDepartment of Genitourinary Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA.
G Daniel GrassDepartment of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA.
Rohit K JainDepartment of Genitourinary Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA.
Ashish M KamatDepartment of Urology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3546-9928
Aram VosoughiDepartment of Anatomic Pathology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA.
Liang WangDepartment of Tumour Biology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA.
Xuefeng WangDepartment of Biostatistics/Bioinformatics, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5775-408X
Roger LiDepartment of Genitourinary Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA. Roger.Li@moffit.org.ORCID 0000-0003-1274-7200
Moffitt Cancer Center · USBaylor College of Medicine · USCornell University · USDana-Farber Cancer Institute · USNorthwestern University · USSUNY Upstate Medical University · USThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · US

Funding

BLRD VA I01 BX003692BLRD VA I01 BX005599
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Precision medicine has transformed the way urothelial carcinoma is managed. However, current practices are limited by the availability of tissue samples for genomic profiling and the spatial and temporal molecular heterogeneity observed in many studies. Among rapidly advancing genomic sequencing technologies, non-invasive liquid biopsy has emerged as a promising diagnostic tool to reproduce tumour genomics, and has shown potential to be integrated in several aspects of clinical care. In urothelial carcinoma, liquid biopsies such as plasma circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) and urinary tumour DNA (utDNA) have been investigated as a surrogates for tumour biopsies and might bridge many shortfalls currently faced by clinicians. Both ctDNA and utDNA seem really promising in urothelial carcinoma diagnosis, staging and prognosis, response to therapy monitoring, detection of minimal residual disease and surveillance. The use of liquid biopsies in patients with urothelial carcinoma could further advance precision medicine in this population, facilitating personalized patient monitoring through non-invasive assays.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Transitional CellCirculating Tumor DNAUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsUrologic NeoplasmsBiomarkers, TumorDNA, NeoplasmHumansBiomarkers, TumorCirculating Tumor DNADNA, Neoplasm

Identifiers

PMID36977797
OpenAlexW4361301436

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.