Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38166232›Full record

ReviewJCO precision oncology2024

Recommendations for the Equitable and Widespread Implementation of Liquid Biopsy for Cancer Care.

Phillip G Febbo, Mina Allo, Emma B Alme, Gebra Cuyun Carter, Robert Dumanois, Alessia Essig, Estevan Kiernan, Caitlin B Kubler, Nikki Martin, Medeea C Popescu and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JCO precision oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Targeting tumor transition windows.Exploration of targeted anti-tumor therapy · 2026
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Phillip G FebboIllumina, San Diego, CA.ORCID 0000-0002-6496-4664
Mina AlloTempus, Chicago, IL.ORCID 0009-0008-8183-9049
Emma B AlmeGuardant Health, Palo Alto, CA.
Gebra Cuyun CarterExact Sciences, Madison, WI.ORCID 0000-0002-6549-0069
Robert DumanoisThermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA.
Alessia EssigAstraZeneca, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0000-3032-6480
Estevan KiernanIllumina, San Diego, CA.
Caitlin B KublerPrevent Cancer Foundation, Alexandria, VA.
Nikki MartinLUNGevity Foundation, Chicago, IL.ORCID 0000-0003-2806-1043
Medeea C PopescuBLOODPAC, Chicago, IL.ORCID 0000-0001-6856-5559
Lauren C LeimanBLOODPAC, Chicago, IL.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Liquid biopsies-tests that detect circulating tumor cellular components in the bloodstream-have the potential to transform cancer by reducing health inequities in screening, diagnostics, and monitoring. Today, liquid biopsies are being used to guide treatment choices for patients and monitor for cancer recurrence, and promising work in multi-cancer early detection is ongoing. However, without awareness of the barriers to adoption of this new technology and a willingness to build mitigation efforts into the implementation of widespread liquid biopsy testing, the communities that could most benefit may be the last to access and use them. In this work, we review the challenges likely to affect the accessibility of liquid biopsies in both the general population and underserved populations, and recommend specific actions to facilitate equitable access for all patients.

Indexed as

Neoplastic Cells, CirculatingHumansLiquid Biopsy

Identifiers

PMID38166232
PMCPMC10803048

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.