4.7 Article

Blood-based liquid biopsy: Insights into early detection and clinical management of lung cancer

期刊

CANCER LETTERS
卷 524, 期 -, 页码 91-102

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.canlet.2021.10.013

关键词

Liquid biopsy; Biomarkers; Lung cancer; Early detection; Clinical management

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article discusses the importance of liquid biopsies in the discovery of lung cancer biomarkers, introduces emerging blood-based minimally invasive biomarkers, and discusses their advantages and limitations. It also summarizes the progress of identified biomarkers for clinical management of lung cancer, and proposes a potential strategy for early detection of lung cancer using a combination of LDCT scans and biomarkers.
Currently, early detection of lung cancer relies on the characterisation of images generated from computed tomography (CT). However, lung tissue biopsy, a highly invasive surgical procedure, is required to confirm CTderived diagnostic results with very high false-positive rates. Hence, a non-invasive or minimally invasive biomarkers is essential to complement the existing low-dose CT (LDCT) for early detection, improve responses to a certain treatment, predict cancer recurrence, and to evaluate prognosis. In the past decade, liquid biopsies (e.g., blood) have been demonstrated to be highly effective for lung cancer biomarker discovery. In this review, the roles of emerging liquid biopsy-derived biomarkers such as circulating nucleic acids, circulating tumour cells (CTCs), long non-coding RNA (lncRNA), and microRNA (miRNA), as well as exosomes, have been highlighted. The advantages and limitations of these blood-based minimally invasive biomarkers have been discussed. Furthermore, the current progress of the identified biomarkers for clinical management of lung cancer has been summarised. Finally, a potential strategy for the early detection of lung cancer, using a combination of LDCT scans and well-validated biomarkers, has been discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据