ArticleFrontiers in urology2026
Liquid-based genomic profiling in high-risk localized prostate cancer.
Article in Frontiers in urology, 2026. 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Tumor genomic profiling using liquid biopsies offers a minimally invasive alternative to tissue biopsy-based approach, with advantages in accessibility, tumor heterogeneity representation, and repeatability. While established in metastatic prostate cancer, its feasibility in localized disease remains unclear due to low ctDNA levels. Methods: We evaluated the feasibility and performance of tissue and liquid-based genomic profiling in patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer enrolled in a phase 2 neoadjuvant trial. Genomic DNA from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue and cell-free DNA from plasma were analyzed using Illumina TruSight Oncology 500 panels and DRAGEN™ pipelines, with in-house filtering of artifacts and germline variants. Results: Of 22 FFPE tissue biopsies, only 54.5% (12/22) yielded usable data, with failures due to low DNA quality or quantity. All 27 plasma samples (100%) were successfully sequenced, despite low ctDNA levels. Both approaches identified an average of 3.5 genomic variants per sample, including alterations in Conclusions: Liquid-based genomic profiling is feasible and achieved high sequencing success rates in high-risk localized prostate cancer. Although concordance analysis was limited, plasma-based profiling showed robust sequencing performance and detected biologically relevant alterations. These findings support liquid biopsy as a complementary approach for molecular characterization, particularly when tissue samples are limited or of suboptimal quality. Larger studies are required to establish concordance and clinical utility.
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.