ReviewWorld journal of urology2026
Circulating tumour DNA and extrachromosomal DNA in prostate and bladder cancer: biology, clinical applications and future perspectives.
Review in World journal of urology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo critically appraise circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) and extrachromosomal DNA (ecDNA) in prostate and bladder cancer, and to define what evidence links the two.
methodsNarrative review of search period July-September 2026, supplemented by reference-list and citation screening, covering ctDNA and ecDNA biology, detection and clinical application in prostate and urothelial cancer. The ctDNA-ecDNA interface was appraised using a five-tier evidentiary framework (copy-number gain; structural rearrangement; amplicon-graph reconstruction; phasing/optical mapping; orthogonal validation).
resultsIn bladder cancer, the phase 3 IMvigor011 trial validated ctDNA-guided adjuvant atezolizumab (disease-free survival [DFS] HR 0.64; overall survival [OS] HR 0.59), while persistently ctDNA-negative patients had 2-year DFS/OS of 88.4%/97.1% without adjuvant therapy. In prostate cancer, ctDNA positivity and androgen-receptor alterations are strongly prognostic (median OS 29.0 vs. 47.4 months; HR 2.0), but no prospective ctDNA-guided interventional trial exists. ecDNA is present in approximately 36% of urothelial carcinomas and drives oncogene amplification, heterogeneity, immune evasion and resistance. Evidence linking the two is indirect and asymmetric: prostate cancer offers stronger longitudinal ctDNA evidence via plasma AR-ecDNA proxy signatures, whereas bladder cancer shows stronger structural evidence from urinary sediment; no structurally validated blood ecDNA has been reported. This evidence derives predominantly from metastatic cohorts (mCRPC, post-cystectomy bladder cancer), with no established role in earlier-stage or minimal-residual-disease settings.
conclusionctDNA is clinically actionable in bladder cancer and prognostic in advanced prostate cancer, whereas ecDNA remains an investigational driver. Structural confirmation of ecDNA in blood, assay standardisation and prospective biomarker-stratified trials are the priorities for the field.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42823553What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.