Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37542343›Full record

ReviewJournal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR2023

Network approach in liquidomics landscape.

Daniele Santini, Andrea Botticelli, Antonio Galvano, Michele Iuliani, Lorena Incorvaia, Valerio Gristina, Chiara Taffon, Simone Foderaro, Elisa Paccagnella, Sonia Simonetti and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Liquid Biopsy in Solid Tumours: An Overview.Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

18 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Daniele Santini *Oncologia Medica A, Policlinico Umberto 1, La Sapienza Università Di Roma, Rome, Italy.
Andrea BotticelliOncologia Medica A, Policlinico Umberto 1, La Sapienza Università Di Roma, Rome, Italy.
Antonio Galvano *Section of Medical Oncology, Department of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Sciences, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Michele IulianiMedical Oncology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Department of Medicine and Surgery, Università Campus Bio-Medico Di Roma, Selcetta, Italy.
Lorena IncorvaiaSection of Medical Oncology, Department of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Sciences, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Valerio GristinaSection of Medical Oncology, Department of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Sciences, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Chiara TaffonAnatomical Pathology Operative Research Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy.
Simone FoderaroMedical Oncology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Department of Medicine and Surgery, Università Campus Bio-Medico Di Roma, Selcetta, Italy.
Elisa PaccagnellaDepartment of Medical Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, Sapienza University of Rome, C.So Della Repubblica 79, 04100, Latina, Italy.
Sonia SimonettiMedical Oncology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Department of Medicine and Surgery, Università Campus Bio-Medico Di Roma, Selcetta, Italy.
Federico FazioUOC Oncologia Territoriale, Polo Pontino, La Sapienza Università Di Roma, Latina, Italy. Federico_fazio@outlook.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-6556-0323
Simone ScagnoliOncologia Medica A, Policlinico Umberto 1, La Sapienza Università Di Roma, Rome, Italy.
Giulia PomatiINI Casa Di Cura, Grottaferrata, Italy.
Francesco PantanoMedical Oncology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Department of Medicine and Surgery, Università Campus Bio-Medico Di Roma, Selcetta, Italy.
Giuseppe PerroneAnatomical Pathology Operative Research Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy.
Elena De FalcoDepartment of Medical Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, Sapienza University of Rome, C.So Della Repubblica 79, 04100, Latina, Italy.
Antonio Russo *Section of Medical Oncology, Department of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Sciences, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Gian Paolo Spinelli *UOC Oncologia Territoriale, Polo Pontino, La Sapienza Università Di Roma, Latina, Italy.
Università Campus Bio-Medico · ITUniversity of Palermo · ITPoliclinico Umberto I · ITSapienza University of Rome · ITClinica Mediterranea · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tissue-based biopsy is the present main tool to explore the molecular landscape of cancer, but it also has many limits to be frequently executed, being too invasive with the risk of side effects. These limits and the ability of cancer to constantly evolve its genomic profile, have recently led to the need of a less invasive and more accurate alternative, such as liquid biopsy. By searching Circulating Tumor Cells and residues of their nucleic acids or other tumor products in body fluids, especially in blood, but also in urine, stools and saliva, liquid biopsy is becoming the future of clinical oncology. Despite the current lack of a standardization for its workflows, that makes it hard to be reproduced, liquid biopsy has already obtained promising results for cancer screening, diagnosis, prognosis, and risk of recurrence.Through a more accessible molecular profiling of tumors, it could become easier to identify biomarkers predictive of response to treatment, such as EGFR mutations in non-small cell lung cancer and KRAS mutations in colorectal cancer, or Microsatellite Instability and Mismatch Repair as predictive markers of pembrolizumab response.By monitoring circulating tumor DNA in longitudinal repeated sampling of blood we could also predict Minimal Residual Disease and the risk of recurrence in already radically resected patients.In this review we will discuss about the current knowledge of limitations and strengths of the different forms of liquid biopsies for its inclusion in normal cancer management, with a brief nod to their newest biomarkers and its future implications.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungCirculating Tumor DNALung NeoplasmsBiomarkers, TumorHumansLiquid BiopsyBiomarkers, TumorCirculating Tumor DNACTCctDNALiquid biopsyLiquidomicsMRDTargeted therapy

Identifiers

PMID37542343
PMCPMC10401883
OpenAlexW4385582133

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.