Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38983668›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of methodology2024

Revisiting the standards of cancer detection and therapy alongside their comparison to modern methods.

Piotr Gromek, Zuzanna Senkowska, Elżbieta Płuciennik, Zbigniew Pasieka, Lin-Yong Zhao, Adrianna Gielecińska, Mateusz Kciuk, Karol Kłosiński, Żaneta Kałuzińska-Kołat, Damian Kołat

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of methodology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

10 authors.

Piotr GromekDepartment of Functional Genomics, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz 90-752, Lodzkie, Poland.
Zuzanna SenkowskaDepartment of Functional Genomics, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz 90-752, Lodzkie, Poland.
Elżbieta PłuciennikDepartment of Functional Genomics, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz 90-752, Lodzkie, Poland.
Zbigniew PasiekaDepartment of Biomedicine and Experimental Surgery, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz 90-136, Lodzkie, Poland.
Lin-Yong ZhaoDepartment of General Surgery & Laboratory of Gastric Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy/Collaborative Innovation Center of Biotherapy and Cancer Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, Sichuan Province, China.
Adrianna GielecińskaDepartment of Molecular Biotechnology and Genetics, University of Lodz, Lodz 90-237, Lodzkie, Poland.
Mateusz KciukDepartment of Molecular Biotechnology and Genetics, University of Lodz, Lodz 90-237, Lodzkie, Poland.
Karol KłosińskiDepartment of Biomedicine and Experimental Surgery, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz 90-136, Lodzkie, Poland.
Żaneta Kałuzińska-KołatDepartment of Functional Genomics, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz 90-752, Lodzkie, Poland.
Damian KołatDepartment of Functional Genomics, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz 90-752, Lodzkie, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In accordance with the World Health Organization data, cancer remains at the forefront of fatal diseases. An upward trend in cancer incidence and mortality has been observed globally, emphasizing that efforts in developing detection and treatment methods should continue. The diagnostic path typically begins with learning the medical history of a patient; this is followed by basic blood tests and imaging tests to indicate where cancer may be located to schedule a needle biopsy. Prompt initiation of diagnosis is crucial since delayed cancer detection entails higher costs of treatment and hospitalization. Thus, there is a need for novel cancer detection methods such as liquid biopsy, elastography, synthetic biosensors, fluorescence imaging, and reflectance confocal microscopy. Conventional therapeutic methods, although still common in clinical practice, pose many limitations and are unsatisfactory. Nowadays, there is a dynamic advancement of clinical research and the development of more precise and effective methods such as oncolytic virotherapy, exosome-based therapy, nanotechnology, dendritic cells, chimeric antigen receptors, immune checkpoint inhibitors, natural product-based therapy, tumor-treating fields, and photodynamic therapy. The present paper compares available data on conventional and modern methods of cancer detection and therapy to facilitate an understanding of this rapidly advancing field and its future directions. As evidenced, modern methods are not without drawbacks; there is still a need to develop new detection strategies and therapeutic approaches to improve sensitivity, specificity, safety, and efficacy. Nevertheless, an appropriate route has been taken, as confirmed by the approval of some modern methods by the Food and Drug Administration.

Indexed as

Cancer detectionCancer therapyElastographyFluorescence imagingLiquid biopsy; Synthetic biosensorsNanotechnologyOncolytic virotherapyReflectance confocal microscopyTumor-treating fields

Identifiers

PMID38983668
PMCPMC11229876

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.