Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37686024›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2023

Using cfDNA and ctDNA as Oncologic Markers: A Path to Clinical Validation.

Jonathan Dao, Patrick J Conway, Baskaran Subramani, Devi Meyyappan, Sammy Russell, Daruka Mahadevan

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
19.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

65 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 81 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Mutation-Specific Response to Ramucirumab inJTO clinical and research reports · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Present and future of liver transplantation for cholangiocellular carcinoma: moving toward personalized multiparametric transplantability patterns.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2026
    Review

5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jonathan DaoLong School of Medicine, University of Texas Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX 78229, USA.
Patrick J ConwayMays Cancer Center, University of Texas Health, San Antonio, TX 78229, USA.
Baskaran SubramaniMays Cancer Center, University of Texas Health, San Antonio, TX 78229, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6966-3484
Devi MeyyappanMays Cancer Center, University of Texas Health, San Antonio, TX 78229, USA.
Sammy RussellLong School of Medicine, University of Texas Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX 78229, USA.
Daruka MahadevanLong School of Medicine, University of Texas Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX 78229, USA.
The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The detection of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in liquid biopsy samples as an oncological marker is being used in clinical trials at every step of clinical management. As ctDNA-based liquid biopsy kits are developed and used in clinics, companies work towards increased convenience, accuracy, and cost over solid biopsies and other oncological markers. The technology used to differentiate ctDNA and cell-free DNA (cfDNA) continues to improve with new tests and methodologies being able to detect down to mutant allele frequencies of 0.001% or 1/100,000 copies. Recognizing this development in technology, the FDA has recently given pre-market approval and breakthrough device designations to multiple companies. The purpose of this review is to look at the utility of measuring total cfDNA, techniques used to differentiate ctDNA from cfDNA, and the utility of different ctDNA-based liquid biopsy kits using relevant articles from PubMed, clinicaltrials.gov, FDA approvals, and company newsletters. Measuring total cfDNA could be a cost-effective, viable prognostic marker, but various factors do not favor it as a monitoring tool during chemotherapy. While there may be a place in the clinic for measuring total cfDNA in the future, the lack of standardization means that it is difficult to move forward with large-scale clinical validation studies currently. While the detection of ctDNA has promising standardized liquid biopsy kits from various companies with large clinical trials ongoing, their applications in screening and minimal residual disease can suffer from lower sensitivity. However, researchers are working towards solutions to these issues with innovations in technology, multi-omics, and sampling. With great promise, further research is needed before liquid biopsies can be recommended for everyday clinical management.

Indexed as

Cell-Free Nucleic AcidsCirculating Tumor DNABiopsyGene FrequencyLiquid BiopsyCell-Free Nucleic AcidsCirculating Tumor DNAcfDNActDNAliquid biopsy

Identifiers

PMID37686024
PMCPMC10487653
OpenAlexW4386168688

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.