ArticleNeuro-oncology practice2025
Evaluating liquid biopsy biomarkers for early detection of brain metastasis: A systematic review.
Article in Neuro-oncology practice, 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.
- Patient-derived resources for decoding and targeting brain metastases ecosystems.EMBO molecular medicine · 2026Review
- Urine and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers for early glioma detection: a systematic review.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2026Review
- Epigenetic Profiling of Cell-Free DNA in Cerebrospinal Fluid: A Novel Biomarker Approach for Metabolic Brain Diseases.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Brain metastases (BMs) are the most common intracranial malignancy in adults, contributing significantly to cancer-related morbidity and mortality. Early detection is critical for optimizing treatment and improving survival. This systematic review evaluates the diagnostic potential of liquid biopsy biomarkers for detecting BM from lung, breast, and other cancers. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and BIOSIS databases using keywords related to liquid biopsy, biomarkers, and BMs. Data on participant characteristics, diagnostic reference standards, types of biomarkers, primary cancer origins, and diagnostic outcomes were independently extracted. Diagnostic performance was evaluated using sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC). Risk of bias was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Results: Thirty-one studies involving 5676 participants were included, assessing biomarkers such as cfDNA, miRNAs, proteins (eg, neurofilament light [NfL], glial fibrillary acidic protein [GFAP], S100B), metabolomic profiles, and multi-marker models. NfL and GFAP emerged as the most promising biomarkers, demonstrating moderate to strong diagnostic performance across multiple cancer types. Multi-marker models combining NfL and GFAP achieved sensitivity and specificity exceeding 90%. S100B showed variable performance due to differences in study designs and thresholds. Emerging biomarkers like cfDNA and metabolomic profiles showed potential but require further validation. Conclusions: Liquid biopsy biomarkers, particularly NfL and GFAP, hold promise for non-invasive BM detection. Clinical utility may be in the initial cancer workup for localized tumor to prompt brain imaging. Future research is required to validate biomarkers in larger, diverse populations across different cancer types.
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.