ArticleCommunications medicine2026
Patient-specific alterations in blood plasma cfRNA profiles enable accurate classification of cancer patients and controls.
Article in Communications medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multiplex RT-PCR-Based Sequencing Assay to Detect Kidney Cancer-Specific Splice Variants in Tumor Tissues and Plasma Cell-Free RNAs.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2026Article
- Patient-specific alterations in blood plasma cfRNA profiles enable accurate classification of cancer patients and controls.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- Subpar reporting of pre-analytical variables in RNA-focused blood plasma studies.Molecular oncology · 2025Review
- Article
- Characterizing the Cell-Free Transcriptome in a Humanized Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Patient-Derived Tumor Xenograft Model for RNA-Based Liquid Biopsy in a Preclinical Setting.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Detection of reproducible liver cancer specific ligand-receptor signaling in blood.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
27 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCirculating nucleic acids in blood plasma form an attractive, minimally invasive resource to study human health and disease. In this study, we aimed to identify cell-free RNA alterations that can distinguish cancer patients from cancer-free individuals.
methodsWe first performed mRNA capture sequencing on 266 blood plasma samples from cancer patients and controls, including a discovery set of 208 donors across 25 cancer types and a replication set of 58 donors across three cancer types. We first conducted group-level comparisons and then compared individual patient profiles to a reference control population in a one-versus-many approach. This approach was further evaluated in independent cohorts: a prostate cancer plasma cohort (n = 180), a non-malignant disease plasma cohort (n = 125), a lymphoma plasma cohort (n = 65), and a bladder cancer urine cohort (n = 24), each including both patients and controls.
resultsHere we show that cancer patients exhibit both cancer type-specific and general cell-free RNA alterations. However, differentially abundant RNAs vary widely among patients and across cohorts, hampering robust biomarker identification. By comparing individual patient profiles to control populations, we identify so-called biomarker tail genes, which strongly deviate from controls. The number of these genes per sample distinguishes cancer patients from control samples. Independent cohorts also confirm the potential of this approach.
conclusionsOur findings demonstrate substantial heterogeneity in cell-free RNA alterations among cancer patients and propose that patient-specific changes can be exploited for classification.
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.