Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42741648›Full record

ReviewJournal of Cancer2026

Liquid Biopsy and Nonendoscopic Biomarkers for Precision Early Detection of Esophageal Cancer: Evidence, Risk Stratification and Translational Challenges.

Fangzheng Han, Huaimin Liu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of Cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Fangzheng HanThe Second Clinical Medical College of Henan University of Chinese Medicine, Zhengzhou, Henan, China.
Huaimin LiuHenan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, Henan, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Esophageal cancer remains one of the most lethal malignancies worldwide, largely because most tumors are detected after symptoms develop. Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) differ in epidemiology, precursor lesions and molecular biology, and therefore require subtype-specific early-detection pathways. This narrative critical review used a structured PubMed/MEDLINE search and classifies evidence by intended use: population risk triage for ESCC in high-incidence regions; targeted case finding for previously undiagnosed Barrett esophagus; surveillance and progression prediction in established Barrett esophagus; diagnostic evaluation of symptomatic or referred patients; and multicancer early-detection studies as indirect contextual evidence. We evaluate nonendoscopic cell-collection devices, cfDNA methylation and fragmentomics, mutation-based circulating tumor DNA assays, circulating RNA and extracellular vesicles, autoantibodies, metabolomic and microbiome signals, and clinical risk models. Although many clinically diagnosed or case-control series report high AUROC values, such estimates often overstate performance in asymptomatic populations, where low prevalence sharply limits positive predictive value. The most credible near-term role is calibrated, risk-stratified triage that concentrates endoscopy on individuals most likely to harbor early cancer or high-grade precursors. Increased detection yield, favorable modeling and implementation feasibility are not equivalent to clinical utility; utility requires evidence that biomarker-guided care improves meaningful outcomes at acceptable cost and harm. Integrated multiomic testing remains a proposed future strategy rather than a prospectively validated esophageal-cancer screening platform.

Indexed as

cell-free DNA methylationearly detectionesophageal cancerliquid biopsynonendoscopic biomarkersrisk stratification

Identifiers

PMID42741648
PMCPMC13573304

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.