ArticleThoracic cancer2024
Circulation of rare events in the liquid biopsy for early detection of lung mass lesions.
Article in Thoracic cancer, 2024. 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.
- Article
- Unsupervised detection of rare events in liquid biopsy assays.NPJ precision oncology · 2025Article
- Circulation of rare events in the liquid biopsy for early detection of lung mass lesions.Thoracic cancer · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (CT) scans (LDCT) has reduced mortality for patients with high-risk smoking histories, but it has significant limitations: LDCT screening implementation remains low, high rates of false-positive scans, and current guidelines exclude those without smoking histories. We sought to explore the utility of liquid biopsy (LBx) in early cancer screening and diagnosis of lung cancer.
methodsUsing the high-definition single-cell assay workflow, we analyzed 99 peripheral blood samples from three cohorts: normal donors (NDs) with no known pathology (n = 50), screening CT patients (n = 25) with Lung-RADS score of 1-2, and biopsy (BX) patients (n = 24) with abnormal CT scans requiring tissue biopsy.
resultsFor CT and BX patients, demographic information was roughly equivalent; however, average pack-years smoked differed. A total of 14 (58%) BX patients were diagnosed with primary lung cancer (BX+). The comparison of the rare event enumerations among the cohorts revealed a greater incidence of total events, rare cells, and oncosomes, as well as specific cellular phenotypes in the CT and BX cohorts compared with the ND cohort. LBx analytes were also significantly elevated in the BX compared with the CT samples, but there was no difference between BX+ and BX- samples.
conclusionsThe data support the utility of the LBx in distinguishing patients with an alveolar lesion from those without, providing a potential avenue for prescreening before LDCT.
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.