Talk:Liquid biopsy

dabconcept

This article has been flagged with {{dabconcept}} but is not clear what the primary topic/concept would be about. It should not be about the trademark as the term is used much more widely. It would be likely to lead to near-duplicate text which would be hard to keep in sync. Better to leave as dab ? @Neodop: - Rod57 (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Just like traditional/"solid" biopsy, liquid biopsy is a research technique with several applications (largely in cancer) and hence should be described in an article like any other popular technique. A disambiguation is not acceptable under any circumstances given that "liquid bipsy" refers to one type of technique, not a series of unrelated concepts. Of course there are methodological variations, like in say protein sequencing or functional imaging, and they should be described in different sections. As of now I do not have time to work on this article, but in the future I will be happy to help. For now I am going to turn it into a stub and remove the company name as it is not encyclopedic. Neodop (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I saw the various techniques described as LB as rather distinct (hence the dab, to keep the descriptions separated) - the potential problem of expanding this page is it will duplicate the content of individual articles. Time will tell. - Rod57 (talk) 01:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Neodop: Sadly the Gingras ref needs a subscription - Can you confirm it is of CTCs (not ctDNA) and the validation refers to FDA approval ? - Rod57 (talk) 01:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the FDA has approved CTC samplig from blood for prognosis, specifically the CellSearch system (see 1 and 2). Cheers. Neodop (talk) 11:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)