ArticleAsian biomedicine : research, reviews and news2025
Evaluating plasma and tissue biopsy for DNA methylation markers in early colorectal cancer detection: a systematic review.
Article in Asian biomedicine : research, reviews and news, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: DNA methylation markers are emerging as promising diagnostic tools for the early detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) that can significantly improve survival rates. Objective: To compare the capabilities of blood plasma and tissue biopsy for detecting these markers in early CRC stages by diagnostic measures. Methods: Nine studies published from 2020 to 2024 were analyzed, and the study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Results: This review reaffirms tissue-based samples as the gold standard based on the superior sensitivity and specificity with markers such as SFMBT2 being over 90% in the 2 parameters. However, due to its invasive nature, it challenges applicability for asymptomatic patients or routine screening. Plasma-based markers (SEPT9 and HAND1) offer a noninvasive alternative, with moderate sensitivity (40%-75.8%) and high specificity (69%-94.7%), while combining multiple markers improves overall diagnostic performance. However, most plasma-based assays evaluated in this review do not yet meet the 2021 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services approval benchmarks of ≥74% sensitivity and ≥90% specificity compared with colonoscopy, which shows the need for further optimization before its clinical implementation. QUADAS-2 illustrated a potential high risk of bias in patient selection and flow/timing domains, which underscores the need for more standardized diagnostic workflows and assay protocols. Conclusions: Future research should focus on multi-marker panels, adherence to regulatory thresholds, cost-effectiveness analyses, and clear clinical management pathways to facilitate the widespread implementation of plasma-based CRC screening.
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.