ReviewCancer metastasis reviews2026
Inferring tissue origin from cell-free DNA in metastatic cancer.
Review in Cancer metastasis reviews, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A major clinical challenge in metastatic cancer management is determining not only the presence of tumor-derived cell-free DNA (cfDNA) but also the tissue lineage and organ context reflected by circulating cfDNA signals. CfDNA supports such inference by retaining molecular signatures specific to its tissue-of-origin, including DNA methylation, 5-hydroxymethylcytosine (5hmC), fragmentomic profiles, nucleosome positioning patterns, and histone modifications. This review examines the biological principles underlying cfDNA-based tissue-of-origin determination, the computational frameworks used to interpret these signals, and the key barriers to clinical translation. We additionally compare representative deconvolution and classification strategies, including linear and probabilistic models, machine/deep learning, and single-cell-informed reference approaches. Despite substantial progress, clinical integration remains hindered by low tumor fractions, heterogeneous contributions from multiple tissues, background noise from nonmalignant cell death, and a lack of robust prospective validation. We further emphasize that source estimates in metastatic plasma should be interpreted in the context of mixed tissue contributions, differential shedding, reference design, and model uncertainty, rather than as direct measures of anatomical metastatic burden.
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.