Liquid biopsy – a narrative review with an update on current US governmental clinical trials targeting immunotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This study aims to present a comprehensive international analysis of the existing techniques used in liquid biopsies and their use in isolating tumor markers to detect, predict, and monitor the results of cancer treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a narrative review using a scoping review model based on three databases, including PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane. The search criteria included all articles on liquid biopsy of the last five years (June 30th, 2023-Oct 30, 2024) ((liquid Biopsy) AND (("2023/06/30"[Date - Publication]: "2024/10/30"[Date - Publication]))). We also approached gray literature on this topic. We focused on review articles as an eligibility criterion for this narrative review, but we also carried out a United States registered clinical trials review targeting immunotherapy and liquid biopsy with the limitation "recruiting" and/or "not yet recruiting" (updated on March 31, 2025). RESULTS: We screened 2645 articles from PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane and 45 articles from the gray literature. We retrieved the full text for 325 articles. Liquid biopsies involve the extraction of tumor-derived components such as circulating tumor cells, circulating tumor DNA, and tumor extracellular vesicles from the bodily fluids of cancer patients. We found 25 United States registered governmental clinical trials targeting immunotherapy and liquid biopsy, of which 20 trials are recruiting and five trials are not yet recruiting. DISCUSSION: Developments in medicine have led to a more comprehensive understanding of tumor features, including tumor load, tumor staging, heterogeneity, gene mutations, and clonal evolution. The utilization of liquid biopsies from cancer patients has provided novel opportunities for detection and ongoing monitoring, precision medicine-based therapy, and identification of markers for therapeutic resistance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".