ArticleThe Indian journal of medical research2025
Diagnostic accuracy of cfDNA levels in gallbladder cancer: A study using qPCR & threshold evaluation.
Article in The Indian journal of medical research, 2025. 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.
- Biological basis and clinical translation prospects of circulating cell-free DNA in precision management of breast cancer (Review).Oncology letters · 2026Review
- Emergence of Liquid Biopsy in Precision Oncology: A Review of its diagnostic, Predictive and Therapeutic Applications in Gallbladder Cancer.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2026Review
- Liquid biopsy in biliary tract cancers: early diagnosis, precision therapy, and prognostic evaluation.Frontiers in oncology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background & objectives Gallbladder cancer (GBC) is a highly aggressive malignancy with a poor prognosis, often due to late-stage diagnosis. Existing diagnostic methods are invasive and not always feasible in resource-limited settings. Circulating free DNA (cfDNA) has emerged as a potential non-invasive biomarker for malignancies, including GBC. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of cfDNA levels in distinguishing GBC patients from healthy controls, considering its potential for early detection and personalised treatment. Methods This case-control study included 42 newly diagnosed GBC affected individuals and 15 age- and sex-matched healthy controls. Plasma cfDNA was extracted using a bead-based protocol and quantified through quantitative PCR (qPCR) targeting the β-globin gene. Diagnostic thresholds were identified using Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) and precision-recall curve analyses, assessing sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values. Results cfDNA levels were significantly elevated in GBC patients compared to controls (P<0.05), with a mean cfDNA level of 721 ng/ml. Four diagnostic offering distinct clinical thresholds were identified: 75.5 ng/ml, 130 ng/ml, 188 ng/ml, and 372.92 ng/ml. The ROC curve demonstrated an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.94, indicating high diagnostic accuracy. cfDNA achieved high sensitivity (97.6% at 75.5 ng/ml) and 100 per cent specificity at 188 ng/ml. Interpretation & conclusion cfDNA serves as a reliable, non-invasive biomarker for GBC diagnosis, providing high diagnostic accuracy and utility in early detection and disease monitoring. These findings highlight cfDNA's potential as both a standalone diagnostic tool and a complementary marker to traditional tumour markers, enhancing diagnostic precision and aiding in personalised medicine. Its integration into diagnostic protocols can be particularly valuable in resource-limited settings.
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.