ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2026
Clinical Applications of Blood-Derived Extracellular Vesicle Biomarkers in Breast Cancer: A Scoping Review.
Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Blood-derived extracellular vesicle (EV) biomarkers have emerged as promising liquid-biopsy analytes for monitoring treatment response and prognosis in breast cancer. This scoping review mapped the clinical evidence on blood-derived EV in breast cancer and identified key barriers to clinical translation. Following the Joanna Briggs Institute framework and PRISMA-ScR guidelines, we searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for eligible studies published through November 2025. After duplicate removal, title and abstract screening, and full-text assessment, 64 clinical studies were included. Research activity increased markedly from 2020 onward, accounting for 87.5% (56/64) of included studies. The literature was concentrated in East Asia, particularly China (51.6%, 33/64). RNA-based biomarkers predominated (60.9%, 39/64), especially microRNAs (39.1%, 25/64). Prognostic outcomes were evaluated in 89.1% (57/64) of studies, treatment response in 51.6% (33/64), and both endpoints in 40.6% (26/64). Triple-negative breast cancer was the most frequently studied subtype in isolation (15.6%, 10/64). Methodological heterogeneity was substantial, and kit-based precipitation was the most common EV isolation method (57.8%, 37/64). EV biomarkers show promise for non-invasive monitoring in breast cancer, but methodological standardization, compliance with Minimal Information for Studies of Extracellular Vesicles guidelines, and large prospective validation studies remain necessary before routine clinical implementation.
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.