Surbhi Jain1, Selena Y Lin1, Wei Song1, Ying-Hsiu Su2. 1. 1 JBS Science, Inc., Doylestown, Pennsylvania. 2. 2 Department of Translational Medical Science, The Baruch S. Blumberg Institute, Doylestown, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
AIMS: The use of circulating cell-free DNA for detection of cancer genetics has been studied extensively. Liquid biopsy often refers to the use of blood as a minimally invasive source of body fluid for detecting circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). However, urine collection, which is completely noninvasive, has been shown to also have great promise to serve as an alternate body fluid source for ctDNA. In this review article, we focus on the clinical utility of urine for genetic liquid biopsy of nonurological cancers. CONCLUSION: Although still in early stages as compared with blood-based liquid biopsy, recent studies have demonstrated the value of urine-based liquid biopsies for: nonurological cancer screening; early detection; monitoring for recurrence and metastasis; and therapeutic efficacy. Overall, the completely noninvasive and patient-friendly nature of the urine-based biopsy warrants further development and offers a promising alternative to blood-based biopsies.
AIMS: The use of circulating cell-free DNA for detection of cancer genetics has been studied extensively. Liquid biopsy often refers to the use of blood as a minimally invasive source of body fluid for detecting circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). However, urine collection, which is completely noninvasive, has been shown to also have great promise to serve as an alternate body fluid source for ctDNA. In this review article, we focus on the clinical utility of urine for genetic liquid biopsy of nonurological cancers. CONCLUSION: Although still in early stages as compared with blood-based liquid biopsy, recent studies have demonstrated the value of urine-based liquid biopsies for: nonurological cancer screening; early detection; monitoring for recurrence and metastasis; and therapeutic efficacy. Overall, the completely noninvasive and patient-friendly nature of the urine-based biopsy warrants further development and offers a promising alternative to blood-based biopsies.
Authors: G D Kirk; A M Camus-Randon; M Mendy; J J Goedert; P Merle; C Trépo; C Bréchot; P Hainaut; R Montesano Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-01-19 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: X Chen; H Bonnefoi; S Diebold-Berger; J Lyautey; C Lederrey; E Faltin-Traub; M Stroun; P Anker Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: P E Jackson; G S Qian; M D Friesen; Y R Zhu; P Lu; J B Wang; Y Wu; T W Kensler; B Vogelstein; J D Groopman Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2001-01-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: A Castells; P Puig; J Móra; J Boadas; L Boix; E Urgell; M Solé; G Capellà; F Lluís; L Fernández-Cruz; S Navarro; A Farré Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: I Botezatu; O Serdyuk; G Potapova; V Shelepov; R Alechina; Y Molyaka; V Ananév; I Bazin; A Garin; M Narimanov; V Knysh; H Melkonyan; S Umansky; A Lichtenstein Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: R Gonzalez; J M Silva; A Sanchez; G Dominguez; J M Garcia; X Q Chen; M Stroun; M Provencio; P España; P Anker; F Bonilla Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Y Suzuki; Z Zhang; N Shimozawa; M Muro; H Shono; S Toda; S Miyahara; T Hashimoto; N Usuda; M Ito; S Takashima; N Kondo Journal: J Hum Genet Date: 1999 Impact factor: 3.172
Authors: Elien Augustus; Kaat Van Casteren; Laure Sorber; Peter van Dam; Geert Roeyen; Marc Peeters; Alex Vorsters; An Wouters; Jo Raskin; Christian Rolfo; Karen Zwaenepoel; Patrick Pauwels Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-04-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Tetsuyuki Hirahata; Reeshan Ul Quraish; Afraz Ul Quraish; Shahan Ul Quraish; Munazzah Naz; Mohammad Abdul Razzaq Journal: Cancer Inform Date: 2022-02-07