4.6 Review

Is liquid biopsy the future commutator of decision-making in liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma?

期刊

FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.940473

关键词

CTC (circulation tumor cells); ctDNA (circulating tumor DNA); liver cancer; transplant; biomarkers

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Liquid biopsy has shown great potential in improving selection criteria for liver transplant in hepatocellular carcinoma. Despite limited studies, existing research highlights the significant prognostic value of liquid biopsy in this specific clinical scenario, emphasizing the urgent need for further research and integration into decision-making.
Liver transplant (LT) is the most favorable treatment option for patients with early stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Numerous attempts have been pursued to establish eligibility criteria and select HCC patients for LT, leading to various systems that essentially integrate clinico-morphological variables. Lacking of sufficient granularity to recapitulate the biological complexity of the disease, all these alternatives display substantial limitations and are thus undeniably imperfect. Liquid biopsy, defined as the molecular analysis of circulating analytes released by a cancer into the bloodstream, was revealed as an incomparable tool in the management of cancers, including HCC. It appears as an ideal candidate to refine selection criteria of LT in HCC. The present comprehensive review analyzed the available literature on this topic. Data in the field, however, remain scarce with only 17 studies. Although rare, these studies provided important and encouraging findings highlighting notable prognostic values and supporting the contribution of liquid biopsy in this specific clinical scenario. These results underpinned the critical and urgent need to intensify and accelerate research on liquid biopsy, in order to determine whether and how liquid biopsy may be integrated in the decision-making of LT in HCC.

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

4.6
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