Reverse transcription‑quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT‑qPCR) is the gold standard method for the diagnosis of COVID‑19 infection. Due to pre‑analytical and technical limitations, samples with low viral load are often misdiagnosed as false‑negative samples. Therefore, it is important to evaluate other strategies able to overcome the limits of RT‑qPCR. Blinded swab samples from two individuals diagnosed positive and negative for COVID‑19 were analyzed by droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) and RT‑qPCR in order to assess the sensitivity of both methods. Intercalation chemistries and a World Health Organization (WHO)/Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)‑approved probe for the SARS‑CoV‑2 N gene were used. SYBR‑Green RT‑qPCR is not able to diagnose as positive samples with low viral load, while, TaqMan Probe RT‑qPCR gave positive signals at very late Ct values. On the contrary, ddPCR showed higher sensitivity rate compared to RT‑qPCR and both EvaGreen and probe ddPCR were able to recognize the sample with low viral load as positive even at 10‑fold diluted concentration. In conclusion, ddPCR shows higher sensitivity and specificity compared to RT‑qPCR for the diagnosis of COVID‑19 infection in false‑negative samples with low viral load. Therefore, ddPCR is strongly recommended in clinical practice for the diagnosis of COVID‑19 and the follow‑up of positive patients until complete remission.

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID‑19) pandemic has forced the scientific community to rapidly develop highly reliable diagnostic methods in order to effectively and accurately diagnose this pathology, thus limiting the spread of infection. Although the structural and molecular characteristics of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‑CoV‑2) were initially unknown, various diagnostic strategies useful for making a correct diagnosis of COVID‑19 have been rapidly developed by private research laboratories and biomedical companies. At present, rapid antigen or antibody tests, immunoenzymatic serological tests and molecular tests based on RT‑PCR are the most widely used and validated techniques worldwide. Apart from these conventional methods, other techniques, including isothermal nucleic acid amplification techniques, clusters of regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats/Cas (CRISPR/Cas)‑based approaches or digital PCR methods are currently used in research contexts or are awaiting approval for diagnostic use by competent authorities. In order to provide guidance for the correct use of COVID‑19 diagnostic tests, the present review describes the diagnostic strategies available which may be used for the diagnosis of COVID‑19 infection in both clinical and research settings. In particular, the technical and instrumental characteristics of the diagnostic methods used are described herein. In addition, updated and detailed information about the type of sample, the modality and the timing of use of specific tests are also discussed.

The extracellular matrix (ECM) plays an important role in the regulation of the tissue microenvironment and in the maintenance of cellular homeostasis. Several proteins with a proteolytic activity toward several ECM components are involved in the regulation and remodeling of the ECM. Among these, Matrix Metalloproteinases (MMPs) are a class of peptidase able to remodel the ECM by favoring the tumor invasive processes. Of these peptidases, MMP-9 is the most involved in the development of cancer, including that of melanoma. Dysregulations of the MAPKs and PI3K/Akt signaling pathways can lead to an aberrant overexpression of MMP-9. Even ncRNAs are implicated in the aberrant production of MMP-9 protein, as well as other proteins responsible for the activation or inhibition of MMP-9, such as Osteopontin and Tissue Inhibitors of Metalloproteinases. Currently, there are different therapeutic approaches for melanoma, including targeted therapies and immunotherapies. However, no biomarkers are available for the prediction of the therapeutic response. In this context, several studies have tried to understand the diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic potential of MMP-9 in melanoma patients by performing clinical trials with synthetic MMPs inhibitors. Therefore, MMP-9 may be considered a promising molecule for the management of melanoma patients due to its role as a biomarker and therapeutic target.

Oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) is the leading cause of mortality for oral cancer. Numerous risk factors mainly related to unhealthy habits and responsible for chronic inflammation and infections have been recognized as predisposing factors for oral carcinogenesis. Recently, even microbiota alterations have been associated with the development of human cancers. In particular, some specific bacterial strains have been recognized and strongly associated with oral cancer development (Capnocytophaga gingivalis, Fusobacterium spp., Streptococcus spp., Peptostreptococcus spp., Porphyromonas gingivalis and Prevotella spp.). Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain how the oral microbiota could be involved in cancer pathogenesis by mainly paying attention to chronic inflammation, microbial synthesis of cancerogenic substances, and alteration of epithelial barrier integrity. Based on knowledge of the carcinogenic effects of dysbiosis, it was recently suggested that probiotics may have anti-tumoral activity. Nevertheless, few data exist with regard to probiotic effects on oral cancer. On this basis, the association between the development of oral cancer and oral dysbiosis is discussed focusing attention on the potential benefits of probiotics administration in cancer prevention.

Uveal melanoma (UM) represents the most prominent primary eye cancer in adults. With an incidence of approximately 5 cases per million individuals annually in the United States, UM could be considered a relatively rare cancer. The 90‑95% of UM cases arise from the choroid. Diagnosis is based mainly on a clinical examination and ancillary tests, with ocular ultrasonography being of greatest value. Differential diagnosis can prove challenging in the case of indeterminate choroidal lesions and, sometimes, monitoring for documented growth may be the proper approach. Fine needle aspiration biopsy tends to be performed with a prognostic purpose, often in combination with radiotherapy. Gene expression profiling has allowed for the grading of UMs into two classes, which feature different metastatic risks. Patients with UM require a specialized multidisciplinary management. Primary tumor treatment can be either enucleation or globe preserving. Usually, enucleation is reserved for larger tumors, while radiotherapy is preferred for small/medium melanomas. The prognosis is unfavorable due to the high mortality rate and high tendency to metastasize. Following the development of metastatic disease, the mortality rate increases to 80% within one year, due to both the absence of an effective treatment and the aggressiveness of the condition. Novel molecular studies have allowed for a better understanding of the genetic and epigenetic mechanisms involved in UM biological activity, which differs compared to skin melanomas. The most commonly mutated genes are GNAQ, GNA11 and BAP1. Research in this field could help to identify effective diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers, as well as novel therapeutic targets.

Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is the most frequent and deadly human brain cancer. Early diagnosis through non-invasive biomarkers may render GBM more easily treatable, improving the prognosis of this currently incurable disease. We suggest the use of serum extracellular vesicle (sEV)-derived circular RNAs (circRNAs) as highly stable minimally invasive diagnostic biomarkers for GBM diagnosis. EVs were isolated by size exclusion chromatography from sera of 23 GBM and 5 grade 3 glioma (GIII) patients, and 10 unaffected controls (UC). The expression of two candidate circRNAs (circSMARCA5 and circHIPK3) was assayed by droplet digital PCR. CircSMARCA5 and circHIPK3 were significantly less abundant in sEVs from GBM patients with respect to UC (fold-change (FC) of −2.15 and −1.92, respectively) and GIII (FC of −1.75 and −1.4, respectively). Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis, based on the expression of sEV-derived circSMARCA5 and circHIPK3, allowed us to distinguish GBM from UC (area under the curve (AUC) 0.823 (0.667–0.979) and 0.855 (0.704 to 1.000), with a 95% confidence interval (CI), respectively). Multivariable ROC analysis, performed by combining the expression of sEV-derived circSMARCA5 and circHIPK3 with preoperative neutrophil to lymphocyte (NLR), platelet to lymphocyte (PLR) and lymphocyte to monocyte (LMR) ratios, three known diagnostic and prognostic GBM markers, allowed an improvement in the GBM diagnostic accuracy (AUC 0.901 (0.7912 to 1.000), 95% CI). Our data suggest sEV-derived circSMARCA5 and circHIPK3 as good diagnostic biomarkers for GBM, especially when associated with preoperative NLR, PLR and LMR.