Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41550877›Full record

ArticleThe journal of liquid biopsy2026

Liquid biopsy in Oncology: Results of a Delphi consensus study endorsed by the AIOM-SIAPEC/IAP-SIBioC-SIF Italian scientific societies.

Valerio Gristina, Umberto Malapelle, Gennaro Daniele, Giovanni Maria Iannantuono, Tancredi Didier Bazan Russo, Rossana Berardi, Giordano Domenico Beretta, Ettore Domenico Capoluongo, Marcello Ciaccio, Romano Danesi and 18 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The journal of liquid biopsy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

28 authors.

Valerio GristinaDepartment of Precision Medicine in Medical, Surgical and Critical Care (Me.Pre.C.C.), University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Umberto MalapelleDepartment of Public Health, University Federico II of Naples, Naples, Italy.
Gennaro DanielePhase 1 Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Giovanni Maria IannantuonoPhase 1 Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Tancredi Didier Bazan RussoDepartment of Precision Medicine in Medical, Surgical and Critical Care (Me.Pre.C.C.), University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Rossana BerardiDepartment of Medical Oncology, Università Politecnica delle Marche, AOU delle Marche, Ancona, Italy.
Giordano Domenico BerettaMedical Oncology, Hospital, Pescara, Italy.
Ettore Domenico CapoluongoDepartment of Clinical Pathology, San Giovanni Addolorata Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Marcello CiaccioDepartment of Biomedicine, Neurosciences and Advanced Diagnostics, Institute of Clinical Biochemistry, Clinical Molecular Medicine, and Clinical Laboratory Medicine, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Romano DanesiDepartment of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milano, Milan, Italy.
Marzia Del ReDepartment of Faculty Medicine, Saint Camillus International University of Medical and Health Sciences, 00131, Rome, Italy.
Matteo FassanDepartment of Medicine (DIMED), Surgical Pathology and Cytopathology Unit, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Giuseppe GiuffrèDepartment of Human Pathology in Adult and Developmental Age "Gaetano Barresi", University of Messina, Messina, 98125, Italy.
Stefania GoriOncologia Medica, IRCCS Ospedale Sacro Cuore Don Calabria, Negrar, Verona, Italy.
Lorena IncorvaiaDepartment of Precision Medicine in Medical, Surgical and Critical Care (Me.Pre.C.C.), University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Antonio MarchettiCenter for Advanced Studies and Technology (CAST), University Chieti-Pescara, Italy.
Nicola NormannoScientific Directorate, IRCCS Istituto Romagnolo per lo Studio dei Tumori (IRST) "Dino Amadori", Meldola, Italy.
Carmine PintoMedical Oncology, Comprehensive Cancer Centre Azienda AUSL - IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Daniele SantiniDepartment of Medical Oncology A, Policlinico Umberto 1, La Sapienza Università di Roma, Rome, Italy.
Andrea Sartore BianchiDepartment of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, Università degli Studi di Milano (La Statale), Milan, Italy.
Nicola SilvestrisMedical Oncology Department, IRCCS Istituto "Tumori Giovanni Paolo II", Bari, Italy.
Pierosandro TagliaferriDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Catanzaro, Catanzaro, Italy.
Giancarlo TronconeDepartment of Public Health, University Federico II of Naples, Naples, Italy.
Massimo Di MaioDepartment of Oncology, University of Turin, A.O.U. Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, Ospedale Molinette, Turin, Italy.
Francesco PerroneIstituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione G. Pascale, 80131, Napoli, Italy.
Antonio GalvanoDepartment of Precision Medicine in Medical, Surgical and Critical Care (Me.Pre.C.C.), University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Christian RolfoDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, The Arthur G. James Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
Antonio RussoDepartment of Precision Medicine in Medical, Surgical and Critical Care (Me.Pre.C.C.), University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Liquid biopsy (LB) offers a minimally invasive alternative to tissue biopsy by detecting tumor-derived analytes in biological fluids. Nonetheless, its adoption is limited by variability in methodologies. Therefore, this study used a modified RAND/UCLA approach involving 23 experts of the field, providing two questionnaires that assessed agreement on 22 items. Consensus was reached for all the pre- and post-analytical phase items, agreeing on the pivotal role of plasma cfDNA. Conversely, opinions varied regarding other biomarkers and biological samples. Furthermore, turnaround time and disease setting resulted as two of the most important analytical parameters for choosing testing methodology. Particularly, a complementary tissue-liquid approach with sampling interval ≤2 weeks was preferred. To conclude, a strong consensus on sample handling, biomarker prioritization, and clinical applications is achieved. However, significant heterogeneity remains regarding novel biomarkers, sampling strategies, and costs. Standardization and validation are needed to enhance the clinical adoption of LB.

Indexed as

Clinical practicectDNADelphiLiquid biopsySolid tumors

Identifiers

PMID41550877
PMCPMC12803951

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.