Jian Zhou1, Ao Huang2, Xin-Rong Yang2. 1. Liver Surgery Department, Liver Cancer Institute, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 20032, China. zhou.jian@zs-hospital.sh.cn. 2. Liver Surgery Department, Liver Cancer Institute, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 20032, China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We summarized the recent findings of liquid biopsy in cancer field and discussed its potential utility in hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: Literature published in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Direct electronic databases was searched and reviewed. RESULTS: Liquid biopsy specially referred to the detection of nucleic acids (circulating cell-free DNA, cfDNA) and circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in the blood of cancer patients. Compared to conventional single-site sampling or biopsy method, liquid biopsy had the advantages such as non-invasiveness, dynamic monitoring, and the most important of all, overcoming the limit of spatial and temporal heterogeneity. The genomic information of cancer could be profiled by genotyping cfDNA/CTC and subsequently applied to make molecular classification, targeted therapy guidance, and unveil drug resistance mechanisms. The serial sampling feature of liquid biopsy made it possible to monitor treatment response in a real-time manner and predict tumor metastasis/recurrence in advance. CONCLUSIONS: Liquid biopsy is a non-invasive, dynamic, and informative sampling method with important clinical translational significance in cancer research and practice. Much work needs to be done before it is used in the management of HCC.
PURPOSE: We summarized the recent findings of liquid biopsy in cancer field and discussed its potential utility in hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: Literature published in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Direct electronic databases was searched and reviewed. RESULTS: Liquid biopsy specially referred to the detection of nucleic acids (circulating cell-free DNA, cfDNA) and circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in the blood of cancerpatients. Compared to conventional single-site sampling or biopsy method, liquid biopsy had the advantages such as non-invasiveness, dynamic monitoring, and the most important of all, overcoming the limit of spatial and temporal heterogeneity. The genomic information of cancer could be profiled by genotyping cfDNA/CTC and subsequently applied to make molecular classification, targeted therapy guidance, and unveil drug resistance mechanisms. The serial sampling feature of liquid biopsy made it possible to monitor treatment response in a real-time manner and predict tumor metastasis/recurrence in advance. CONCLUSIONS: Liquid biopsy is a non-invasive, dynamic, and informative sampling method with important clinical translational significance in cancer research and practice. Much work needs to be done before it is used in the management of HCC.
Authors: Grant D Stewart; Fiach C O'Mahony; Alexander Laird; Lel Eory; Alexander L R Lubbock; Alan Mackay; Jyoti Nanda; Marie O'Donnell; Peter Mullen; S Alan McNeill; Antony C P Riddick; Daniel Berney; Axel Bex; Michael Aitchison; Ian M Overton; David J Harrison; Thomas Powles Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2015-05-26 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Nur-Afidah Mohamed Suhaimi; Yu Miin Foong; Daniel Yoke San Lee; Wai Min Phyo; Igor Cima; Esther Xing Wei Lee; Wei Lin Goh; Wei-Yen Lim; Kee Seng Chia; Say Li Kong; Min Gong; Bing Lim; Axel M Hillmer; Poh Koon Koh; Jackie Y Ying; Min-Han Tan Journal: Mol Oncol Date: 2015-01-07 Impact factor: 6.603
Authors: Rafael Rosell; Teresa Moran; Cristina Queralt; Rut Porta; Felipe Cardenal; Carlos Camps; Margarita Majem; Guillermo Lopez-Vivanco; Dolores Isla; Mariano Provencio; Amelia Insa; Bartomeu Massuti; Jose Luis Gonzalez-Larriba; Luis Paz-Ares; Isabel Bover; Rosario Garcia-Campelo; Miguel Angel Moreno; Silvia Catot; Christian Rolfo; Noemi Reguart; Ramon Palmero; José Miguel Sánchez; Roman Bastus; Clara Mayo; Jordi Bertran-Alamillo; Miguel Angel Molina; Jose Javier Sanchez; Miquel Taron Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-08-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Sumitra Mohan; Ellen Heitzer; Peter Ulz; Ingrid Lafer; Sigurd Lax; Martina Auer; Martin Pichler; Armin Gerger; Florian Eisner; Gerald Hoefler; Thomas Bauernhofer; Jochen B Geigl; Michael R Speicher Journal: PLoS Genet Date: 2014-03-27 Impact factor: 6.020
Authors: Bernhard Polzer; Gianni Medoro; Sophie Pasch; Francesca Fontana; Laura Zorzino; Aurelia Pestka; Ulrich Andergassen; Franziska Meier-Stiegen; Zbigniew T Czyz; Barbara Alberter; Steffi Treitschke; Thomas Schamberger; Maximilian Sergio; Giulia Bregola; Anna Doffini; Stefano Gianni; Alex Calanca; Giulio Signorini; Chiara Bolognesi; Arndt Hartmann; Peter A Fasching; Maria T Sandri; Brigitte Rack; Tanja Fehm; Giuseppe Giorgini; Nicolò Manaresi; Christoph A Klein Journal: EMBO Mol Med Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 12.137
Authors: Vasily N Aushev; Irina B Zborovskaya; Konstantin K Laktionov; Nicolas Girard; Marie-Pierre Cros; Zdenko Herceg; Vladimir Krutovskikh Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-10-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Min Liu; Ruizhe Li; Yang Tang; Jiwu Chang; Rong Han; Shumin Zhang; Ning Jiang; Fuling Ma Journal: Oncol Lett Date: 2017-02-13 Impact factor: 2.967
Authors: Rick Kamps; Rita D Brandão; Bianca J van den Bosch; Aimee D C Paulussen; Sofia Xanthoulea; Marinus J Blok; Andrea Romano Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2017-01-31 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Marta Cristaldi; Rodolfo Mauceri; Olga Di Fede; Giovanna Giuliana; Giuseppina Campisi; Vera Panzarella Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2019-12-10 Impact factor: 4.566