Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40739228›Full record

SynthesisBMC cancer2025

Cerebrospinal fluid Circulating Tumor DNA (ctDNA) as a biomarker for CNS metastases in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC): a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing CSF ctDNA and traditional methods.

Oluwatobi O Olayode, Blessing T Ogunoye, Emmanuel Olusola Oladeji, Oluwafemi E Olayinka, Tolulope J Oladosu

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

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

  1. [Liquid Biopsy Revolutionizes the Precise Management of Tumors Across the Entire Course: Current Situation and Future Prospects].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

5 authors.

Oluwatobi O OlayodeDepartment of Surgery, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Osun State, Nigeria. Olayodeoluwatobi@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-6819-8015
Blessing T OgunoyeDepartment of Surgery, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Osun State, Nigeria.
Emmanuel Olusola OladejiSurgery Interest Group of Africa, Lagos, Nigeria.
Oluwafemi E OlayinkaDepartment of Surgery, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Osun State, Nigeria.
Tolulope J OladosuDepartment of Surgery, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Osun State, Nigeria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBrain metastasis is a common and serious complication in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), often associated with poor prognosis. While traditional diagnostic approaches such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) cytology are commonly used for detection, these methods have notable limitations. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in CSF has been reported as a superior alternative. This study evaluates the diagnostic test accuracy of CSF ctDNA for CNS metastases detection in patients with NSCLC, in comparison to CSF cytology, while also examining its potential prognostic value.

methodsA systematic search was conducted to identify studies that reported CSF ctDNA detection in NSCLC patients with brain or leptomeningeal metastases. Pooled detection rates, sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratios were meta-analyzed. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed using standard statistical methods. Subgroup and sensitivity analysis were applied to identify and address source of high heterogeneity.

resultsTwenty-six studies were included. The pooled detection rate of CSF ctDNA (86%, 95% CI: 0.79-0.91) was significantly higher than CSF cytology (60%, 95% CI: 36% % 81%). Diagnostic test accuracy analysis for CSF ctDNA showed high pooled sensitivity (91.8%, 95% CI: 74.2%-97.8%), specificity (93.5%, 95% CI: 76.7% - 98.5%) and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) (93.51%, 95% CI: 13.85-631.44). Additionally, CSF ctDNA detected clinically relevant mutations that correlated with poorer overall survival, highlighting its prognostic potential.

conclusionCSF ctDNA demonstrates superior diagnostic accuracy for detecting CNS metastases in NSCLC compared to CSF cytology. Its molecular insights may support earlier detection and inform personalized treatment strategies. However, further validation in clinical settings is required.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorBrain NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungCirculating Tumor DNALung NeoplasmsHumansPrognosisSensitivity and SpecificityBiomarkers, TumorCirculating Tumor DNABiomarkerBrain metastasesCSF ctDNADiagnostic accuracyLiquid biopsyNSCLC

Identifiers

PMID40739228
PMCPMC12312583

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.