ReviewCancer science2026
Diagnostic Performance of cfDNA-Based Liquid Biopsy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cancer science, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Conventional surveillance tools for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have limited sensitivity. Circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA)-based liquid biopsy is a promising minimally invasive approach; however, its overall diagnostic performance remains unclear. This meta-analysis aimed to comprehensively evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of cfDNA-based liquid biopsy in HCC. Following PRISMA-DTA guidelines, we searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science until July 2026. Diagnostic accuracy data were pooled using bivariate random-effects models. Methodological quality was assessed using QUADAS-2 and NOS. A total of 29 studies (4250 HCC patients, 7982 controls) were included. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of cfDNA-based testing were 0.82 (95% CI: 0.76-0.86) and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.88-0.93). The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.91-0.96). Subgroup analyses showed higher sensitivity in advanced HCC 0.91 (95% CI: 0.85-0.95) than early HCC 0.77 (95% CI: 0.71-0.83). Methylation profiling yielded relatively higher sensitivity 0.84 (95% CI: 0.77-0.89), whereas fragmentomics showed relatively favorable specificity 0.93 (95% CI: 0.88-0.96). Combining cfDNA-based testing with alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) significantly improved sensitivity compared with cfDNA alone (0.78 vs. 0.65). No significant publication bias was detected (p = 0.83). cfDNA-based liquid biopsy achieves high diagnostic accuracy for HCC. As exploratory observations, methylation-based assays with relatively higher sensitivity may have potential value for screening high-risk populations, while fragmentomics-based assays with relatively favorable specificity may aid differential diagnosis. Combining cfDNA-based liquid biopsy with AFP further improves diagnostic performance, supporting cfDNA as a promising noninvasive tool for HCC detection. Trial Registration: This systematic review was registered on PROSPERO: CRD420261293877 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/).
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.