ArticleMolecular oncology2025
A comparative study of circulating tumor cell isolation and enumeration technologies in lung cancer.
Article in Molecular oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interactions Between Circulating Tumor Cells and the Immune System in Colorectal Cancer: Friends or Foes?Cancers · 2026Review
- Performance and pilot clinical validation of MALDITEC-CTC: a circulating tumor cell detection platform using whole-cell MALDI-TOF MS fingerprinting in osteosarcoma.Cancer cell international · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the Cellsway Microfluidic CTC Enrichment and Identification Platform for CTC Detection in Metastatic NSCLC.Biosensors · 2026Article
- Circulating Tumor Cells for the Monitoring of Lung Cancer Therapies.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Advances and Applications of Organ-on-a-Chip and Tissue-on-a-Chip Technology.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Advanced Microfluidics for Single Cell-Based Cancer Research.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- Liquid biopsy of circulating tumor cells: From isolation, enrichment, and genome sequencing to clinical applications.Histology and histopathology · 2025Review
- Evaluation and modification of tumor cell isolation techniques from malignant effusions for rapid drug sensitivity testing.Molecular oncology · 2025Article
- The 3PM transformation potential of minimal residual disease in solid tumor management: a bibliometric analysis and review.The EPMA journal · 2025Review
- Redefining cancer care: harnessing circulating tumor cells' potential for improved diagnosis and prognosis.Cancer cell international · 2025Review
- Circulating tumor cells: overcoming challenges of detecting a needle in a haystack.Exploration of targeted anti-tumor therapy · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) have potential as diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive biomarkers in solid tumors. Despite Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of CTC devices in various cancers, the rarity and heterogeneity of CTCs in lung cancer make them technically challenging to isolate and analyze, hindering their clinical integration. Establishing a consensus through comparative analysis of different CTC systems is warranted. This study aimed to evaluate seven different CTC enrichment methods across five technologies using a standardized spike-in protocol: the CellMag™ (EpCAM-dependent enrichment), EasySep™ and RosetteSep™ (blood cell depletion), and the Parsortix® PR1 and the new design Parsortix® Prototype (PP) (size- and deformability-based enrichment). The Parsortix® systems were also evaluated for any differences in recovery rates between cell harvest versus in-cassette staining. Healthy donor blood (5 mL) was spiked with 100 fluorescently labeled EpCAM
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.