DNA‐Based Liquid Biopsy for Evaluating Surgical and Postsurgical Outcomes in Gynecologic Malignancies: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: DNA-based liquid biopsies, including circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and cell-free DNA (cfDNA), are emerging as minimally invasive biomarkers for monitoring surgical and postsurgical outcomes in gynecologic malignancies. These tools offer the potential to guide early intervention, refine risk stratification, and improve prognostic accuracy. This systematic review aimed to assess the clinical utility of DNA-based liquid biopsies in evaluating recurrence, surgical success, and preoperative diagnosis in gynecologic cancers. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, covering studies published from 2017 to 2025. Literature searches were performed in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. A total of 32 eligible observational studies involving 3210 patients with ovarian, endometrial, uterine, and other gynecologic malignancies were included. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). RESULTS: The studies showed a broad geographic and methodological diversity, with a median NOS score of 7. CtDNA and cfDNA demonstrated promise in three key areas: (1) Recurrence prediction-postoperative ctDNA positivity was associated with higher relapse rates and reduced disease-free survival; (2) Monitoring surgical outcomes and treatment response-ctDNA dynamics more accurately reflected tumor burden than traditional markers like CA125; (3) Preoperative diagnostic support-cfDNA methylation profiling and cfDNA/CA125 models enhanced malignancy detection and risk stratification. Ovarian and endometrial cancers were most frequently studied. CONCLUSIONS: DNA-based liquid biopsies show strong potential in perioperative care for gynecologic cancers. Their integration into clinical workflows could improve the detection of minimal residual disease and inform individualized surgical planning.
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 | 0.009 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".