Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38947418›Full record

ReviewGynecologic oncology reports2024

Circulating cell-free (cf)DNA analysis: Current technologies and applications in gynecologic cancer.

Sarah H Kim, Britta Weigelt

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Gynecologic oncology reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

2 authors.

Sarah H KimGynecology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Britta WeigeltDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI SELWYN M VICKERS · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) analysis has several promising clinical applications in the management of cancer patients, with clinical validity established in different types of solid tumors (e.g., lung, breast, and colon cancer). Cancers harbor unique genetic alterations that can be detected in the plasma and other bodily fluids of cancer patients, constituting an alternate source of tumor-derived DNA. Technologic advances and wide-spread availability of next-generation sequencing (NGS) have made sequencing analysis of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) possible, employing both off-the-shelf and personalized tumor-informed panels. Tumor size, disease burden and high-grade histologic types have been shown to correlate with ctDNA levels across multiple solid cancer types. Detection of tumor-derived genetic alterations in plasma-derived cfDNA can facilitate diagnosis, guide treatment selection, and serve as a biomarker for treatment response and prognostication. Molecular residual disease (MRD) is at the forefront of cfDNA analysis, with implications in treatment de-escalation/ escalation in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings. The development of cfDNA analysis in early detection of cancers is under active investigation. Proof-of-principles studies in gynecologic cancers have demonstrated feasibility and potential for innovation in cancers lacking specific biomarkers, including the tracking of human papillomavirus (HPV) cfDNA in patients with cervical cancer. In this review, we outline the assays currently available for cfDNA sequencing/ ctDNA detection, the role of cfDNA analysis in clinical decision-making and the current status and potential clinical uses of cfDNA research in gynecologic cancers.

Identifiers

PMID38947418
PMCPMC11211888

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.