Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39934875›Full record

ArticleJournal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR2025

A scoping review of factors influencing the implementation of liquid biopsy for cancer care.

Samran Sheriff, Maree Saba, Romika Patel, Georgia Fisher, Tanja Schroeder, Gaston Arnolda, Dan Luo, Lydia Warburton, Elin Gray, Georgina Long and 3 more

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Liquid biopsy and health-related quality of life in cancers: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

13 authors.

Samran SheriffCentre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Level 6, 75 Talavera Road, North Ryde, Sydney, NSW, Australia. samran.sheriff@mq.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-0813-3899
Maree SabaCentre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Level 6, 75 Talavera Road, North Ryde, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1698-9891
Romika PatelCentre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Level 6, 75 Talavera Road, North Ryde, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-6523-8798
Georgia FisherCentre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Level 6, 75 Talavera Road, North Ryde, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7252-7800
Tanja SchroederCentre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Level 6, 75 Talavera Road, North Ryde, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1733-6542
Gaston ArnoldaCentre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Level 6, 75 Talavera Road, North Ryde, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4948-7633
Dan LuoThe Daffodil Centre, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5291-8428
Lydia WarburtonCentre for Precision Health, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9417-1596
Elin GrayCentre for Precision Health, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8613-3570
Georgina LongMelanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8894-3545
Jeffrey BraithwaiteCentre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Level 6, 75 Talavera Road, North Ryde, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0296-4957
Helen RizosMelanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2094-9198
Louise Ann EllisCentre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Level 6, 75 Talavera Road, North Ryde, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6902-4578

Funding

Department of Health and Aged Care, Australian Government GA176020
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLiquid biopsy (LB) offers a promising, minimally invasive alternative to traditional tissue biopsies in cancer care, enabling real-time monitoring and personalized treatment. Despite its potential, the routine implementation of LB in clinical practice faces significant challenges. This scoping review examines the barriers and facilitators influencing the implementation of liquid biopsies into standard cancer care.

methodsFour academic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science) were systematically searched without language restrictions. We included peer-reviewed articles that were published between January 2019 and March 2024 that focused on the implementation of LB in cancer care or described barriers and facilitators to its implementation. Data relevant to the review objective, including key article characteristics; barriers and facilitators of implementation; and recommendations for advancement or optimisation; were extracted and analysed using thematic and visual network analyses.

resultsThe majority of the included articles were narrative review articles (84%), with most from China (24.2%) and the United States (20%). Thematic analysis identified four main categories and their associated barriers and facilitators to the implementation of LB in cancer care: (1) Laboratory and personnel requirements; (2) Disease specificity; (3) Biomarker-based liquid biopsy; and (4) Policy and regulation. The majority of barriers identified were concentrated in the pre-analytical phase, highlighting the lack of standardization in LB technologies and outcomes.

conclusionsThrough a thematic analysis of the barriers and facilitators to LB implementation, we present an integrated tool designed to encourage the standardization of testing methods for clinical practice guidelines in the field.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorNeoplasmsHumansLiquid BiopsyBiomarkers, TumorBarriersCancer careCfDNACTCCtDNAFacilitatorsImplementationLiquid biopsyPersonalised medicine

Identifiers

PMID39934875
PMCPMC11817833

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.