Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40762271›Full record

ReviewFuture oncology (London, England)2025

Recent advances in liquid biopsy for precision oncology: emerging biomarkers and clinical applications in lung cancer.

Tancredi Didier Bazan Russo, Francesco Pepe, Valerio Gristina, Andrea Gottardo, Gianluca Russo, Claudia Scimone, Lucia Palumbo, Giulia Busuito, Lorena Incorvaia, Juliette Aimee Guerry and 6 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Future oncology (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
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

16 authors.

Tancredi Didier Bazan RussoDepartment of Precision Medicine in Medical, Surgical and Critical Care (Me.Pre.C.C.), University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Francesco PepeDepartment of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Valerio GristinaDepartment of Precision Medicine in Medical, Surgical and Critical Care (Me.Pre.C.C.), University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Andrea GottardoDepartment of Precision Medicine in Medical, Surgical and Critical Care (Me.Pre.C.C.), University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Gianluca RussoDepartment of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2698-9470
Claudia ScimoneDepartment of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Lucia PalumboDepartment of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Giulia BusuitoDepartment of Precision Medicine in Medical, Surgical and Critical Care (Me.Pre.C.C.), University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Lorena IncorvaiaDepartment of Precision Medicine in Medical, Surgical and Critical Care (Me.Pre.C.C.), University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Juliette Aimee GuerryDepartment of Precision Medicine in Medical, Surgical and Critical Care (Me.Pre.C.C.), University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Antonio GalvanoDepartment of Precision Medicine in Medical, Surgical and Critical Care (Me.Pre.C.C.), University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Giuseppe BadalamentiDepartment of Precision Medicine in Medical, Surgical and Critical Care (Me.Pre.C.C.), University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Viviana BazanDepartment of Biomedicine, Neuroscience and Advanced Diagnostics (BIND), University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Giancarlo TronconeDepartment of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Antonio RussoDepartment of Precision Medicine in Medical, Surgical and Critical Care (Me.Pre.C.C.), University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Umberto MalapelleDepartment of Public Health, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lung Cancer (LC) remains the leading cause of cancer-related mortality. While Tissue Biopsy (TB) remains the gold standard for molecular profiling, its invasiveness and inability to provide real-time monitoring have led to the adoption of Liquid Biopsy (LB) as a minimally invasive alternative. By analyzing different circulating analytes such as cell-free DNA (cfDNA), circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), Circulating Tumor Cells (CTCs), Extracellular Vesicles (EVs), and Tumor-Educated Platelets (TEPs), LB offers a dynamic approach to assessing tumor heterogeneity, Minimal Residual Disease (MRD), and treatment resistance. Recent clinical trials have underscored their role in guiding therapy decisions and monitoring treatment response. In early-stage disease, several Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) have shown that ctDNA clearance predicts survival benefits in patients receiving neoadjuvant or perioperative Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (ICIs). Additionally, adjuvant RCTs have confirmed the ctDNA prognostic role in post-surgical relapse risk assessment. Despite its transformative potential, challenges such as assay standardization, sensitivity limitations in early-stage disease, and regulatory barriers remain. As ongoing research continues to validate its clinical utility, LB is poised to become an indispensable tool in the precision management of LC.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorLung NeoplasmsPrecision MedicineCirculating Tumor DNAExtracellular VesiclesHumansLiquid BiopsyNeoplastic Cells, CirculatingPrognosisBiomarkers, TumorCirculating Tumor DNActDNAdrug resistanceearly detectionliquid biopsyMRDNSCLCperioperativeprecision medicine

Identifiers

PMID40762271
PMCPMC12408062

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.