ArticleBMC cancer2003
Circulating soluble Fas levels and risk of ovarian cancer.
Article in BMC cancer, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Circulating levels of soluble Fas (sCD95) are associated with risk for development of a nonresolving acute kidney injury subphenotype.Critical care (London, England) · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDysregulation of apoptosis, specifically overexpression of soluble Fas (sFas), has been proposed to play a role in the development of ovarian cancer. The main objective of the present study was to evaluate serum sFas as a potential biomarker of ovarian cancer risk.
methodsThe association between serum sFas levels and the risk of ovarian cancer was examined in a case-control study nested within three prospective cohorts in New York (USA), Umeå (Sweden), and Milan (Italy). Case subjects were 138 women with primary invasive epithelial ovarian cancer diagnosed between 2 months and 13.2 years after the initial blood donation. Control subjects were 263 women who were free of cancer, and matched the case on cohort, menopausal status, age, and enrollment date. Serum sFas levels were determined using a quantitative sandwich enzyme immunoassay.
resultsSerum sFas levels were similar in women subsequently diagnosed with ovarian cancer (median, 6.5 ng/mL; range, 4.4-10.2) and in controls (median, 6.8 ng/mL; range, 4.5-10.1). Statistically significant trends of increasing serum sFas with age were observed among cases (r = 0.39, p < 0.0001) and controls (r = 0.42, p < 0.0001). Compared to women in the lowest third, women in the highest third of serum sFas were not at increased risk of ovarian cancer after adjustment for potential confounders (odd ratio (OR), 0.87; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.42-1.82).
conclusionThe results suggest that serum sFas may not be a suitable marker for identification of women at increased risk of ovarian cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.