Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40259565›Full record

ReviewMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2025

A Review of Circulating Tumor DNA (ctDNA) and the Liquid Biopsy in Cancer Diagnosis, Screening, and Monitoring Treatment Response.

Dinah V Parums

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. A Review of the Importance and Relevance of Real-World Data and Real-World Evidence.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025
    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

1 author.

Dinah V ParumsScience Editor, Medical Science Monitor, International Scientific Information, Inc., Melville, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The concept of liquid biopsy is based on the knowledge that blood or secretions from the body contain tumor cells, nucleic acids, cellular components, and tumor metabolites. Detection of circulating DNA (ctDNA) in liquid biopsy material shows the most promise due to the advances in DNA technologies that have made detection and sample screening possible. Clinical trials have begun to evaluate ctDNA monitoring for response to cancer treatment in clinical settings for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), breast cancer, and colorectal cancer (CRC). However, most liquid biopsy tests introduced into the clinic have only been able to identify one or two features of tumor DNA, which limits the specificity of the test. In early 2025, a study led by a research team at Oxford University identified a new blood test, TriOx, developed using machine learning to detect multiple types of cancer at an early stage. These new blood tests may revolutionize oncology and make early cancer detection as routine as other diagnostic blood tests, such as blood glucose testing. This article aims to review ctDNA and liquid biopsy in the diagnosis, early detection, and monitoring of treatment response in cancer.

Indexed as

Circulating Tumor DNANeoplasmsBiomarkers, TumorEarly Detection of CancerHumansLiquid BiopsyBiomarkers, TumorCirculating Tumor DNA

Identifiers

PMID40259565
PMCPMC12032849

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.