ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2026
Urinary DNA Extraction in Uro-Oncology and Selected Non-Urological Malignancies: A Narrative Review.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Urine is an attractive source of tumor-derived DNA because collection is non-invasive, repeatable, and compatible with large-volume or home-based sampling. Urinary DNA comprises biologically distinct fractions, principally cellular DNA from exfoliated cells and urinary cell-free DNA (cfDNA), which may originate from local release within the urinary tract or from transrenal passage of circulating DNA. Consequently, analytical performance is strongly influenced by urine collection, fractionation, stabilization, extraction, and downstream molecular analysis. This narrative review summarizes evidence from 58 studies addressing urinary DNA extraction and its application in oncology. Analytical studies, including experiments using healthy volunteers, synthetic DNA, and controlled laboratory conditions, demonstrate substantial differences between extraction platforms, particularly in the recovery of short and ultrashort cfDNA fragments. These findings establish analytical performance but should not be interpreted as evidence of clinical superiority. Clinical studies have subsequently demonstrated the feasibility of urinary DNA for mutation detection, methylation analysis, copy-number profiling, surveillance, and treatment-response monitoring, with the strongest evidence currently available in urothelial carcinoma. Applications have also been reported in selected non-urological malignancies. However, methodological standardization, prospective clinical validation, inter-laboratory reproducibility, control of biological and clinical confounders, demonstration of clinical utility, and cost-effectiveness remain necessary before urinary DNA analysis can be incorporated routinely into oncological practice.
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.