Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41827734›Full record

ReviewCancers2026

Liquid Biopsy in Non-Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Clinical Evidence and Future Directions.

Maria Chiara Sighinolfi, Giuseppe Pallotta, Marzia Del Re, Koosha Moosavi, Or Schubert, Francesco Rossi, Filippo Gavi, Simone Assumma, Enrico Panio, Angelo Totaro and 19 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
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

29 authors.

Maria Chiara SighinolfiFondazione Policlinico Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Giuseppe PallottaFondazione Policlinico Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0009-0003-9963-3499
Marzia Del ReFondazione Policlinico Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-7343-6161
Koosha MoosaviFondazione Policlinico Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0009-0000-4508-869X
Or SchubertFondazione Policlinico Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0009-0003-7357-2974
Francesco RossiFondazione Policlinico Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0009-0003-5141-7527
Filippo GaviFondazione Policlinico Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-9994-4316
Simone AssummaFondazione Policlinico Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Enrico PanioFondazione Policlinico Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Angelo TotaroFondazione Policlinico Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Filippo TurriFondazione Policlinico Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Mauro RagoneseFondazione Policlinico Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1919-8729
Nazario FoschiFondazione Policlinico Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-0464-0788
Pierluigi RussoFondazione Policlinico Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7789-9486
Ela PatelFondazione Policlinico Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Carlo GandiFondazione Policlinico Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1349-7696
Giuseppe PalermoFondazione Policlinico Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3861-3545
Eros ScarcigliaFondazione Policlinico Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1087-1064
Francesco PintoFondazione Policlinico Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Simona PresuttiFondazione Policlinico Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Marcio Covas MoschovasFondazione Policlinico Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Angelo MinucciFondazione Policlinico Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0833-4334
Roberto IacovelliFondazione Policlinico Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1750-2117
Chiara CiccareseFondazione Policlinico Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Luca TagliaferriFondazione Policlinico Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Francesco PiercontiFondazione Policlinico Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Camilla NeroFondazione Policlinico Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4442-4046
Gian Franco ZannoniFondazione Policlinico Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Bernardo RoccoFondazione Policlinico Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveLiquid biopsy has transformed the management of advanced prostate cancer, yet its clinical role in non-metastatic disease remains uncertain. Conventional biomarkers such as PSA, imaging, and pathology have limited ability to capture minimal residual disease and biological aggressiveness. The objective of this review was to critically evaluate the current evidence on circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in non-metastatic prostate cancer, focusing on feasibility, prognostic value, and potential clinical applications.

methodsA narrative review of PubMed-indexed original studies evaluating liquid biopsy in clinically localized or non-metastatic prostate cancer was performed. Eligible studies included patients treated with curative-intent local therapy or experiencing biochemical recurrence without radiologic metastases. Study designs were predominantly prospective or retrospective observational cohorts. Liquid biopsy analytes included CTCs and ctDNA assessed from peripheral blood plasma using EpCAM-based enrichment, targeted next-generation sequencing, whole-genome sequencing, or ultra-sensitive tumor-informed assays. Primary outcomes included detection rates, associations with clinicopathologic features, biochemical recurrence, metastasis-free survival, and overall survival. Key Findings and Limitations: Across 11 studies, CTC detection using EpCAM-based platforms was infrequent in localized disease and biochemical recurrence and showed limited prognostic value (10-11% in preoperative settings). In contrast, ctDNA was detectable in a minority of patients but consistently identified biologically aggressive disease and a higher risk of recurrence when present, particularly using tumor-informed ultra-sensitive assays. Limitations include low detection rates, heterogeneous methodologies, small sample sizes, and predominantly exploratory study designs. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Currently, its most promising application is not broad screening, but as a selective, biology-driven tool for detecting minimal residual disease and refining risk assessment. CtDNA acts as a biological risk modifier, potentially guiding the escalation or de-escalation of adjuvant therapy. However, prospective biomarker-driven trials are required to validate these strategies before routine clinical implementation.

Indexed as

circulating tumor cellcirculating tumor DNAliquid biopsynext-generation sequencingnon-metastatic prostate cancer

Identifiers

PMID41827734
PMCPMC12984391

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.