4.6 Review

Translational Application of Circulating DNA in Oncology: Review of the Last Decades Achievements

Journal

CELLS
Volume 8, Issue 10, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cells8101251

Keywords

ctDNA; biomarker; oncology; liquid biopsy; NGS; mass-spectrometry; glioma; urological cancers; diagnosis; prognosis

Categories

Funding

  1. I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University Strategic Development Program under the Russian Academic Excellence 5-100 Project

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In recent years, the introduction of new molecular techniques in experimental and clinical settings has allowed researchers and clinicians to propose circulating-tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis and liquid biopsy as novel promising strategies for the early diagnosis of cancer and for the definition of patients' prognosis. It was widely demonstrated that through the non-invasive analysis of ctDNA, it is possible to identify and characterize the mutational status of tumors while avoiding invasive diagnostic strategies. Although a number of studies on ctDNA in patients' samples significantly contributed to the improvement of oncology practice, some investigations generated conflicting data about the diagnostic and prognostic significance of ctDNA. Hence, to highlight the relevant achievements obtained so far in this field, a clearer description of the current methodologies used, as well as the obtained results, are strongly needed. On these bases, this review discusses the most relevant studies on ctDNA analysis in cancer, as well as the future directions and applications of liquid biopsy. In particular, special attention was paid to the early diagnosis of primary cancer, to the diagnosis of tumors with an unknown primary location, and finally to the prognosis of cancer patients. Furthermore, the current limitations of ctDNA-based approaches and possible strategies to overcome these limitations are presented.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available