Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40219616›Full record

ReviewCytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology2025

Liquid Biopsy in Solid Tumours: An Overview.

Pasquale Pisapia, Antonino Iaccarino, Giancarlo Troncone, Umberto Malapelle

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. 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

4 authors.

Pasquale PisapiaDepartment of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-6429-0620
Antonino IaccarinoDepartment of Neurosciences, Reproductive and Odontostomatological Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Giancarlo TronconeDepartment of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1630-5805
Umberto MalapelleDepartment of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The advent of personalised and precision medicine has radically modified the management and the clinical outcome of cancer patients. However, the expanding number of predictive, prognostic, and diagnostic biomarkers has raised the need for simple, noninvasive, quicker, but equally efficient tests for molecular profiling. In this complex scenario, the adoption of liquid biopsy, particularly circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA), has been a real godsend for many cancer patients who would otherwise have been denied the benefits of targeted treatments. Undeniably, ctDNA analysis has several advantages over conventional tissue-based analysis. One advantage is that it can guide treatment decision making, especially when tissue samples are scarce or totally unavailable. Indeed, a simple blood test can inform clinicians on patients' response or resistance to targeted therapies, help them monitor minimal residual disease (MRD) after surgical resections, and facilitate them with early cancer detection and interception. Finally, an equally important advantage is that ctDNA analysis can help decipher temporal and spatial tumour heterogeneity, a mechanism highly responsible for therapeutic resistance. In this review, we gathered and analysed current evidence on the clinical usefulness of ctDNA analysis in solid tumours.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorCirculating Tumor DNANeoplasmsHumansLiquid BiopsyNeoplasm, ResidualPrecision MedicinePrognosisBiomarkers, TumorCirculating Tumor DNActDNAliquid biopsymolecular oncologymolecular pathologyNGS

Identifiers

PMID40219616
PMCPMC12150003

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.