Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39817953›Full record

ReviewTranslational oncology2025

Potentialities and critical issues of liquid biopsy in clinical practice: An umbrella review.

Nicola Veronese, Claudio Luchini, Stefano Ciriminna, Katia Spinelli, Santo Fruscione, Paola Mattiolo, Miriam Belluzzo, Veronica Messina, Lee Smith, Mario Barbagallo and 1 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Translational oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

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

11 authors.

Nicola VeroneseDepartment of Health Promotion, Mother and Child Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy. Electronic address: nicola.veronese@unipa.it.
Claudio LuchiniDepartment of Diagnostics and Public Health, Section of Pathology, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Stefano CiriminnaDepartment of Health Promotion, Mother and Child Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Katia SpinelliDepartment of Health Promotion, Mother and Child Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Santo FruscioneDepartment of Health Promotion, Mother and Child Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Paola MattioloDepartment of Diagnostics and Public Health, Section of Pathology, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Miriam BelluzzoDepartment of Health Promotion, Mother and Child Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Veronica MessinaDepartment of Health Promotion, Mother and Child Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Lee SmithCentre for Health Performance and Wellbeing, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK.
Mario BarbagalloDepartment of Health Promotion, Mother and Child Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Walter MazzuccoDepartment of Health Promotion, Mother and Child Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy; Division of Biostatistics & Epidemiology Research, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLiquid biopsy (LB) is a laboratory test performed on a fluid sample aiming at analyzing molecular data derived from circulating cells and related entities, or from nucleic acids. This umbrella review aims to map and evaluate the evidence supporting the use of LB in medicine across different medical specialities and conditions.

methodsWe searched three repositories from database inception up to October 1, 2023 and we included meta-analyses of observational studies reporting data on the use of LB, compared to gold standard, and its accuracy (area under the curve, AUC).

resultsAmong 726 articles initially screened, 42 systematic reviews were included. Most of the outcomes explored (202/211) were related to cancer. We found that 75/211 had an excellent accuracy (AUC >0.90), with one comparison with an AUC equal to 1, i.e., Cell-Free Human Papillomavirus DNA (cfHPV-DNA) for HPV-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. However, considering published meta-analyses, all the outcomes were graded as very low on the GRADE criteria, and the heterogeneity was never reported. DISCUSSION: The literature about LB is rapidly increasing and some promising data about precision oncology are now available. However, this umbrella review on existing meta-analyses highlighted some critical issues for providing quantitative estimations on the different roles of LB.

Indexed as

AccuracyCancerLiquid biopsyUmbrella review

Identifiers

PMID39817953
PMCPMC11786759

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.