4.6 Review

Clinical validity of saliva and novel technology for cancer detection

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbcan.2019.05.007

关键词

Saliva; Cancer detection; Biomarker; Liquid biopsy; Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA); Electric Feld Induced Release and Measurement (EFIRM)

资金

  1. Public Health Service (PHS) grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) [UH3 TR000923]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cancer, a local disease at an early stage, systemically evolves as it progresses by triggering alterations in surrounding microenvironment, disturbing immune surveillance and further disseminating its molecular contents into circulation. This pathogenic characteristic of cancer makes the use of biofluids such as blood/serum/plasma, urine, tear and cerebrospinal fluids credible surrogates harboring tumor tissue-derived molecular alterations for the detection of cancer. Most importantly, a number of recent reports have credentialed the clinical validity of saliva for the detection of systemic diseases including cancers. In this review, we discussed the validity of saliva as credible biofluid and clinical sample type for the detection of cancers. We have presented the molecular constituents of saliva that could mirror the systemic status of our body and recent findings of salivaomics associated with cancers. Recently, liquid biopsy to detect cancer-derived circulating tumor DNA has emerged as a credible cancer-detection tool with potential benefits in screening, diagnosis and also risk management of cancers. We have further presented the clinical validity of saliva for liquid biopsy of cancers and a new technology platform based on electrochemical detection of cancer-derived ctDNA in saliva with superior sensitivity and point-of-care potential. The clinical utilities of saliva for the detection of cancers have been evidenced, but biological underpinning on the existence of molecular signatures of cancer-origin in saliva, such as via exosomal distribution, should be addressed in detail.

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