Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18612378›Full record

ArticlePloS one2008

Systematic evaluation of candidate blood markers for detecting ovarian cancer.

Chana Palmer, Xiaobo Duan, Sarah Hawley, Nathalie Scholler, Jason D Thorpe, Rob A Sahota, May Q Wong, Andrew Wray, Lindsay A Bergan, Charles W Drescher and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed
14.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

45 citing papers in PubMed, 84 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Chana PalmerCanary Foundation, Scientific Programs, San Jose, California, United States of America.
Xiaobo Duan
Sarah Hawley
Nathalie Scholler
Jason D Thorpe
Rob A Sahota
May Q Wong
Andrew Wray
Lindsay A Bergan
Charles W Drescher
Martin W McIntosh
Patrick O Brown
Brad H Nelson
Nicole Urban
BC Cancer Agency · CAFred Hutch Cancer Center · USCanary Foundation · USStanford University · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

Vaccinating against IGFBP-2 to prevent ovarian cancer relapseP50CA083636 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI DRESCHER, CHARLES, URBAN, NICOLE DENISE · 1999 to 2015
$35.1M
QOL EFFECTS OF OVARIAN CA RISK EDUCATION AND SCREENINGR01CA075494 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI URBAN, NICOLE D. · 1997 to 2000
$445k
Howard Hughes Medical InstituteNCI NIH HHS 1 R01 CA75494NCI NIH HHS P50 CA083636NCI NIH HHS P50 CA83636
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEpithelial ovarian cancer is a significant cause of mortality both in the United States and worldwide, due largely to the high proportion of cases that present at a late stage, when survival is extremely poor. Early detection of epithelial ovarian cancer, and of the serous subtype in particular, is a promising strategy for saving lives. The low prevalence of ovarian cancer makes the development of an adequately sensitive and specific test based on blood markers very challenging. We evaluated the performance of a set of candidate blood markers and combinations of these markers in detecting serous ovarian cancer. METHODS AND

findingsWe selected 14 candidate blood markers of serous ovarian cancer for which assays were available to measure their levels in serum or plasma, based on our analysis of global gene expression data and on literature searches. We evaluated the performance of these candidate markers individually and in combination by measuring them in overlapping sets of serum (or plasma) samples from women with clinically detectable ovarian cancer and women without ovarian cancer. Based on sensitivity at high specificity, we determined that 4 of the 14 candidate markers--MUC16, WFDC2, MSLN and MMP7--warrant further evaluation in precious serum specimens collected months to years prior to clinical diagnosis to assess their utility in early detection. We also reported differences in the performance of these candidate blood markers across histological types of epithelial ovarian cancer.

conclusionsBy systematically analyzing the performance of candidate blood markers of ovarian cancer in distinguishing women with clinically apparent ovarian cancer from women without ovarian cancer, we identified a set of serum markers with adequate performance to warrant testing for their ability to identify ovarian cancer months to years prior to clinical diagnosis. We argued for the importance of sensitivity at high specificity and of magnitude of difference in marker levels between cases and controls as performance metrics and demonstrated the importance of stratifying analyses by histological type of ovarian cancer. Also, we discussed the limitations of studies (like this one) that use samples obtained from symptomatic women to assess potential utility in detection of disease months to years prior to clinical detection.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorFemaleHumansMesothelinNeoplasms, Glandular and EpithelialOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisOvarian NeoplasmsBiomarkers, TumorMesothelinMSLN protein, human

Identifiers

PMID18612378
PMCPMC2440813
OpenAlexW2087058916

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.