SynthesisInternational journal of molecular sciences2025
Circulating Tumor DNA as a Biomarker for Precision Medicine in Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in International journal of molecular sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Plasma circulating tumor deoxyribonucleic acid methylation enables noninvasive disease stratification beyond prostate-specific antigen in prostate cancer.Prostate international · 2026Article
- Circulating Tumor Function: A Systems Biology Framework for Liquid Biopsy in Genitourinary Cancers.Genes · 2026Review
- Circulating Tumor DNA as Emerging Predictive and Prognostic Biomarker in Prostate Cancer.Cancers · 2026Review
- Emerging Therapeutic Strategies in Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer.Journal of immunotherapy and precision oncology · 2026Review
- Liquid Biopsy in Non-Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Clinical Evidence and Future Directions.Cancers · 2026Review
- Emerging Therapeutic Strategies in Prostate Cancer: Targeted Approaches Using PARP Inhibition, PSMA-Directed Therapy, and Androgen Receptor Blockade with Olaparib, Lutetium (Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Circulating tumour DNA in mCRPC: bridging tumour biology and real-time treatment monitoring.Frontiers in molecular medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) profiling offers non-invasive insights for personalized prostate cancer management. This systematic review provides the first comprehensive appraisal of ctDNA assay methods, genomic targets, and their clinical correlations and proposes practical recommendations to guide future standardization and validation. We searched PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library starting December 2024 following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. From 229 records, 44 studies (10,631 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Plasma ctDNA analyzed by NGS predominantly profiled TP53 (72.7%), AR (70.4%), BRCA1/2 (61.3%), ATM (50%), RB1 (47.7%), and PTEN (41%). ctDNA positivity and specific key alterations correlated with poorer overall and progression-free survival. BRCA1/2-mutant patients benefited from Olaparib plus Abiraterone, while persistent alterations predicted early progression. Beyond synthesizing existing evidence, we identify key gaps, such as inconsistent reporting of variant allele fractions, limited diversity in study populations, and underexplored rare alterations. We recommend unified reporting standards (e.g., variant allele frequency thresholds and panel composition) and prioritized prospective trials to validate high-impact targets. These steps will accelerate the integration of ctDNA into routine precision oncology practice worldwide.
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.