SynthesisInternational journal of colorectal disease2025
Diagnostic value of genetic and epigenetic biomarker panels for colorectal cancer detection: a systematic review.
Synthesis in International journal of colorectal disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Blood-Based Circulating Tumor DNA Assays for Early Colorectal Cancer Detection: A Systematic Review of Performance in Asymptomatic Screening Populations.International journal of cancer · 2026Pooled it
- Colorectal Cancer: Epidemiology, Risk Factors, Signaling Pathways, Clinical Features, Screening, Diagnosis, and Management.MedComm · 2026Review
- Bridging the Precancerous Gap in Colorectal Cancer Through AI-Enhanced Liquid Biopsy, Endoscopy, and Digital Pathology.Cancers · 2026Review
- Diagnostic performance of LINE-1 repetitive elements in stool DNA for non-invasive detection of colorectal cancer.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Article
- A scoping review of DNA methylation biomarkers for non-invasive detection of colorectal cancer at the CpG site level.Clinical epigenetics · 2026Article
- Research advances in early screening for colorectal cancer (Review).Molecular and clinical oncology · 2026Review
- The TCN1 Paradox: Unraveling the Dual Role of Transcobalamin I in Colorectal Cancer-From Metabolic Regulation to Oncogenic Signaling.Cancer management and research · 2026Review
- Oxysterol-binding Protein-like 3 Promotes Tumor Progression by Regulating Apoptosis and Angiogenesis in Colorectal Cancer.Cancer genomics & proteomicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeExploration of effective screening methods is imperative to improve current screening for colorectal cancer (CRC). Our aim was to systematically search the literature to identify and assess the diagnostic accuracy of both genetic and epigenetic biomarker panels for CRC detection using liquid biopsies for circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) from stool, blood, or urine.
methodsA systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) with searches in Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, and Web Of Science from inception up to March 20, 2025, using pre-defined keywords. Study quality assessment was performed using QUADAS-2 tool (Quality Assessment for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2). Primary and secondary outcomes were panel performance (sensitivity and specificity) for CRC, advanced precancerous lesions (APL), and staging of disease.
resultsForty-four studies were included. Exceptional performance for both CRC (sensitivity and specificity) and APL (sensitivity) was displayed by biomarker panels including methylated SDC2 with methylated SFRP1/2 (CRC: 91.5%/97.3%, APL: 89.2%) or methylated TFPI2 (CRC: 94.9%/98.1%, APL: 100%), and a 5-biomarker panel of mutational targets APC, Bat-26, KRAS, L-DNA, and p53 (CRC: 91.0%/93.0%, APL: 82.0%). Suboptimal APL sensitivities up to 57.0% were exhibited by Cologuard and variant panels (including KRAS, methylated BMP3, methylated NDRG4, FIT), and 47.8% for combinations including methylated SEPT9.
conclusionsHigh-performance, candidate ctDNA biomarker panels with exceptional diagnostic accuracy for both CRC and APL have been identified. Further work should focus on the development of large-scale studies to justify their clinical implementation.
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.