MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3119166731 · doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2020.12.037

Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Blood-based Liquid Biopsies to Inform Clinical Decision-making in Prostate Cancer

2021· review· en· W3119166731 on OpenAlexaff
Irene Casanova‐Salas, Alejandro Athie, Paul C. Boutros, Marzia Del Re, David T. Miyamoto, Kenneth J. Pienta, Edwin M. Posadas, Adam G. Sowalsky, Arnulf Stenzl, Alexander W. Wyatt, Joaquı́n Mateo

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Urology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institutes of HealthFundación Científica Asociación Española Contra el CáncerNational Cancer InstituteFundación Fero“la Caixa” Foundation
KeywordsLiquid biopsyProstate cancerMedicineCirculating tumor cellPrecision medicineContext (archaeology)BiopsyBiomarkerPersonalized medicineMicrovesiclesProstateOncologyCancerPathologyBioinformaticsInternal medicinemicroRNAMetastasisBiologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Genomic stratification can impact prostate cancer (PC) care through diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive biomarkers that aid in clinical decision-making. The temporal and spatial genomic heterogeneity of PC together with the challenges of acquiring metastatic tissue biopsies hinder implementation of tissue-based molecular profiling in routine clinical practice. Blood-based liquid biopsies are an attractive, minimally invasive alternative. OBJECTIVE: To review the clinical value of blood-based liquid biopsy assays in PC and identify potential applications to accelerate the development of precision medicine. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review of PubMed/MEDLINE was performed to identify relevant literature on blood-based circulating tumor cells (CTCs), circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), and extracellular vesicles (EVs) in PC. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Liquid biopsy has emerged as a practical tool to profile tumor dynamics over time, elucidating features that evolve (genome, epigenome, transcriptome, and proteome) with tumor progression. Liquid biopsy tests encompass analysis of DNA, RNA, and proteins that can be detected in CTCs, ctDNA, or EVs. Blood-based liquid biopsies have demonstrated promise in the context of localized tumors (diagnostic signatures, risk stratification, and disease monitoring) and advanced disease (response/resistance biomarkers and prognostic markers). CONCLUSIONS: Liquid biopsies have value as a source of prognostic, predictive, and response biomarkers in PC. Most clinical applications have been developed in the advanced metastatic setting, where CTC and ctDNA yields are significantly higher. However, standardization of assays and analytical/clinical validation is necessary prior to clinical implementation. PATIENT SUMMARY: Traces of tumors can be isolated from blood samples from patients with prostate cancer either as whole cells or as DNA fragments. These traces provide information on tumor features. These minimally invasive tests can guide diagnosis and treatment selection.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.089
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.089
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0090.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.156
GPT teacher head0.546
Teacher spread0.390 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations93
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean UrologySame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207