ArticleClinical chemistry2026
Saliva vs Plasma in Liquid Biopsy Sampling for Head and Neck Cancer: A Comparative Study.
Article in Clinical chemistry, 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
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHead and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) presents significant diagnostic and therapeutic challenges due to its rising incidence and poor prognosis. Liquid biopsy, utilizing biofluids such as blood and saliva, offers a noninvasive approach to detect circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), circulating tumor RNA (ctRNA), and small extracellular vesicles (sEVs) containing DNA (sEV-DNA) and RNA (sEV-RNA), which reflect tumor biology. However, comprehensive comparisons of these liquid biopsy markers are limited.
methodsPaired plasma and saliva samples were collected from HNSCC patients and healthy controls. We analyzed ctDNA and sEV-DNA from both plasma and saliva for tumor fraction (TF), copy number variations (CNVs), and methylation patterns. Additionally, we profiled small RNAs from saliva-derived ctRNA and sEV-RNA to explore their potential as biomarkers for disease monitoring.
resultsSaliva sEV-DNA exhibited significantly higher TF compared to plasma sEV-DNA in HNSCC patients (mean, 0.0744 vs 0.0253, P < 0.001), suggesting superior tumor DNA capture in saliva. CNV analysis revealed shared and distinct genomic alterations across different sample types. Aberrant methylation patterns were observed more frequently in sEV-DNA than in ctDNA across both saliva and plasma samples. Small RNA profiling demonstrated broader coverage of differentially expressed genes in saliva sEV-RNA, enhancing its biomarker potential.
conclusionsOur findings suggest that saliva-derived sEVs hold promise as noninvasive biomarkers for HNSCC. Saliva-based liquid biopsies, particularly sEV-DNA and sEV-RNA, provide a comprehensive molecular portrait of HNSCC that may facilitate the development of personalized medicine strategies.
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.