Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39609625›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Clinical oncology2025

Minimal residual disease as a target for liquid biopsy in patients with solid tumours.

Klaus Pantel, Catherine Alix-Panabières

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Clinical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 87 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
87citing 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

87 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Circulating Tumor DNA as a Biomarker for Melanoma Prognosis and Therapy.American journal of clinical dermatology · 2026
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Liquid biopsy in solid tumours: expert opinion paper of the European society of pathology.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2026
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

27 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

2 authors.

Klaus PantelDepartment of Tumour Biology, University Medical, Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. pantel@uke.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5736-2772
Catherine Alix-PanabièresEuropean Liquid Biopsy Society (ELBS), Hamburg, Germany. c-panabieres@chu-montpellier.fr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Metastasis is the leading cause of cancer-related death in patients with solid tumours. Current imaging technologies are not sufficiently sensitive to detect minimal residual disease (MRD; also known as measurable or molecular residual disease) after initial surgery or chemotherapy, pointing to the need for more sensitive tests to detect remaining traces of cancer in the body. Liquid biopsy, or the analysis of tumour-derived or tumour-induced cells or cellular products in the blood or other body fluids, has opened a new diagnostic avenue to detect and monitor MRD. Liquid biopsy is already used in clinical decision making for patients with haematological malignancies. Here, we review current knowledge on the use of circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) to detect and monitor MRD in patients with solid tumours. We also discuss how ctDNA-guided MRD detection and characterization could herald a new era of novel 'post-adjuvant therapies' with the potential to eliminate MRD and cure patients before terminal metastatic disease is evident on imaging.

Indexed as

Circulating Tumor DNANeoplasm, ResidualNeoplasmsBiomarkers, TumorHumansLiquid BiopsyBiomarkers, TumorCirculating Tumor DNA

Identifiers

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.