Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40698358›Full record

ReviewThe journal of liquid biopsy2025

Liquid Biopsy: Current advancements in clinical practice for bladder cancer.

Felice Crocetto, Ugo Amicuzi, Michele Musone, Marco Magliocchetti, Dario Di Lieto, Simone Tammaro, Antonio Luigi Pastore, Andrea Fuschi, Roberto Falabella, Matteo Ferro and 8 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The journal of liquid biopsy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

18 authors.

Felice CrocettoDepartment of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples "Federico II", Naples, Italy.
Ugo AmicuziDepartment of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples "Federico II", Naples, Italy.
Michele MusoneDepartment of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples "Federico II", Naples, Italy.
Marco MagliocchettiDepartment of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples "Federico II", Naples, Italy.
Dario Di LietoDepartment of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples "Federico II", Naples, Italy.
Simone TammaroDepartment of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples "Federico II", Naples, Italy.
Antonio Luigi PastoreUrology Unit, Department of Medico-Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, Faculty of Pharmacy and Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, 04100, Latina, Italy.
Andrea FuschiUrology Unit, Department of Medico-Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, Faculty of Pharmacy and Medicine, Sapienza University of Rome, 04100, Latina, Italy.
Roberto FalabellaUrology Unit, San Carlo Hospital, Via Potito Petrone, 85100, Potenza, Italy.
Matteo FerroUnit of Urology, Department of Health Science, University of Milan, ASST Santi Paolo e Carlo, 20172, Milan, Italy.
Roberto BianchiUnit of Urology, Department of Health Science, University of Milan, ASST Santi Paolo e Carlo, 20172, Milan, Italy.
Marco FinatiDepartment of Urology and Renal Transplantation, University of Foggia, 71122, Foggia, Italy.
Gian Maria BusettoDepartment of Urology and Renal Transplantation, University of Foggia, 71122, Foggia, Italy.
Giuseppe LucarelliUrology and Kidney Transplantation Unit, Department of Precision and Regenerative Medicine and Ionian Area-Urology, University of Bari "Aldo Moro", 70124 Bari, Italy.
Francesco Del GiudiceDepartment of Maternal Infant and Urological Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto 1 Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Vincenzo Francesco CaputoUrology Unit, San Carlo Hospital, Via Potito Petrone, 85100, Potenza, Italy.
Raffaele BalsamoUrology Unit, AORN Ospedali dei Colli, Monaldi Hospital, 80131, Naples, Italy.
Daniela TerraccianoDepartment of Translational Medical Sciences, University of Naples "Federico II", Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bladder cancer is the ninth most common malignancy worldwide, with two clinically distinct forms: non-muscle-invasive disease, characterized by high recurrence and excellent long-term survival, and muscle-invasive disease, associated with poorer outcomes. Current surveillance-cystoscopy and urine cytology-offers high specificity but is invasive, costly, and insensitive to low-grade tumors, underscoring the need for reliable, non-invasive biomarkers. Liquid biopsy approaches in urine and blood have demonstrated promise for real-time assessment of tumor burden, molecular heterogeneity, and early recurrence. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) assays detect tumor-derived genetic and epigenetic alterations, enabling dynamic monitoring of minimal residual disease and treatment response. Methylation-based tests and CpG-targeted sequencing in urine achieve high diagnostic accuracy, potentially reducing dependence on cystoscopy. Molecular classification of bladder tumors into luminal and basal subtypes has refined therapeutic strategies: FGFR inhibitors for luminal-papillary tumors, EGFR-targeted and chemotherapy approaches for basal/squamous cases, and immune-checkpoint inhibitors guided by immune-infiltration profiles. Integration of artificial intelligence with multi-omic liquid biopsy data further enhances predictive modeling for recurrence, treatment response, and minimal residual disease detection. Despite these advances, clinical implementation faces challenges including pre-analytical variability, lack of standardized assays, limited prospective validation, and unclear cost-effectiveness. Harmonized protocols, large multicenter trials, and health-economic evaluations are essential to translate liquid biopsy technologies into routine practice. Future integration with advanced imaging, tissue biopsy, and digital pathology-supported by multidisciplinary collaboration and formal guideline endorsement-holds the potential to personalize bladder cancer management, reduce invasive procedures, and improve patient outcomes.

Indexed as

BiomarkersBiopsyBladder cancerCirculatingLiquid

Identifiers

PMID40698358
PMCPMC12281373

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.