ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2023
Is Cell-Free DNA Testing in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Ready for Prime Time?
Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Silent Messengers: The Role of Extracellular Vesicle-Associated miRNAs in the Non-Invasive Profiling of Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- MicroRNA Binding Site Polymorphisms in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Implications for Pathogenesis, Prognosis, and Therapeutic Response.International journal of genomics · 2025Review
- Circulating Nucleic Acids in Colorectal Cancer: Diagnostic and Prognostic Value.Disease markers · 2024Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Revamping the current biomarker landscape of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with cell-free DNA (cfDNA) could improve overall outcomes. The use of commercially available cfDNA testing (also known as liquid biopsy) is limited by the low prevalence of targetable mutations and does not have any prognostic or predictive value. Thus, current cfDNA testing cannot be relied upon for perioperative risk stratification (POR), including early detection of recurrence, long-term surveillance, predicting outcomes, and treatment response. Prior evidence on cfDNA mutation profiling (non-specific detection or gene panel testing) suggests that it can be a reliable tool for POR and prognostication, but it still requires significant improvements. cfDNA methylation changes or epigenetic markers have not been explored extensively, but early studies have shown potential for it to be a prognostic biomarker tool. The predictive value of cfDNA (mutations and EM) to assist treatment selection (systemic therapy, immune-checkpoint inhibitor vs. tyrosine kinase inhibitor) and to monitor response to systemic and locoregional therapies should be a future area of focus. We highlighted the unmet needs in the HCC management and the current role of cfDNA testing in HCC in addressing them.
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.