Cancers · 2026
Liquid Biopsy in Non-Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Clinical Evidence and Future Directions.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sighinolfi Maria Chiara, Pallotta Giuseppe, Del Re Marzia, Moosavi Koosha, Schubert Or, Rossi Francesco, Gavi Filippo, Assumma Simone, Panio Enrico, Totaro Angelo, Turri Filippo, Ragonese Mauro, Foschi Nazario, Russo Pierluigi, Patel Ela, Gandi Carlo, Palermo Giuseppe, Scarciglia Eros, Pinto Francesco, Presutti Simona, Moschovas Marcio Covas, Minucci Angelo, Iacovelli Roberto, Ciccarese Chiara, Tagliaferri Luca, Pierconti Francesco, Nero Camilla, Zannoni Gian Franco, Rocco Bernardo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Liquid biopsy has transformed the management of advanced prostate cancer, yet its clinical role in non-metastatic disease remains uncertain. Conventional biomarkers such as PSA, imaging, and pathology have limited ability to capture minimal residual disease and biological aggressiveness. The objective of this review was to critically evaluate the current evidence on circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in non-metastatic prostate cancer, focusing on feasibility, prognostic value, and potential clinical applications.
METHODS: A narrative review of PubMed-indexed original studies evaluating liquid biopsy in clinically localized or non-metastatic prostate cancer was performed. Eligible studies included patients treated with curative-intent local therapy or experiencing biochemical recurrence without radiologic metastases. Study designs were predominantly prospective or retrospective observational cohorts. Liquid biopsy analytes included CTCs and ctDNA assessed from peripheral blood plasma using EpCAM-based enrichment, targeted next-generation sequencing, whole-genome sequencing, or ultra-sensitive tumor-informed assays. Primary outcomes included detection rates, associations with clinicopathologic features, biochemical recurrence, metastasis-free survival, and overall survival. Key Findings and Limitations: Across 11 studies, CTC detection using EpCAM-based platforms was infrequent in localized disease and biochemical recurrence and showed limited prognostic value (10-11% in preoperative settings). In contrast, ctDNA was detectable in a minority of patients but consistently identified biologically aggressive disease and a higher risk of recurrence when present, particularly using tumor-informed ultra-sensitive assays. Limitations include low detection rates, heterogeneous methodologies, small sample sizes, and predominantly exploratory study designs.
CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Currently, its most promising application is not broad screening, but as a selective, biology-driven tool for detecting minimal residual disease and refining risk assessment. CtDNA acts as a biological risk modifier, potentially guiding the escalation or de-escalation of adjuvant therapy. However, prospective biomarker-driven trials are required to validate these strategies before routine clinical implementation.
METHODS: A narrative review of PubMed-indexed original studies evaluating liquid biopsy in clinically localized or non-metastatic prostate cancer was performed. Eligible studies included patients treated with curative-intent local therapy or experiencing biochemical recurrence without radiologic metastases. Study designs were predominantly prospective or retrospective observational cohorts. Liquid biopsy analytes included CTCs and ctDNA assessed from peripheral blood plasma using EpCAM-based enrichment, targeted next-generation sequencing, whole-genome sequencing, or ultra-sensitive tumor-informed assays. Primary outcomes included detection rates, associations with clinicopathologic features, biochemical recurrence, metastasis-free survival, and overall survival. Key Findings and Limitations: Across 11 studies, CTC detection using EpCAM-based platforms was infrequent in localized disease and biochemical recurrence and showed limited prognostic value (10-11% in preoperative settings). In contrast, ctDNA was detectable in a minority of patients but consistently identified biologically aggressive disease and a higher risk of recurrence when present, particularly using tumor-informed ultra-sensitive assays. Limitations include low detection rates, heterogeneous methodologies, small sample sizes, and predominantly exploratory study designs.
CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Currently, its most promising application is not broad screening, but as a selective, biology-driven tool for detecting minimal residual disease and refining risk assessment. CtDNA acts as a biological risk modifier, potentially guiding the escalation or de-escalation of adjuvant therapy. However, prospective biomarker-driven trials are required to validate these strategies before routine clinical implementation.