Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18708413›Full record

ArticleCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2008

Assessment of serum proteomics to detect large colon adenomas.

David F Ransohoff, Christopher Martin, Wesley S Wiggins, Ben A Hitt, Temitope O Keku, Joseph A Galanko, Robert S Sandler

Open access · bronzeAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Sources of bias in specimens for research about molecular markers for cancer.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2010
    Article
  3. The current state of proteomics in GI oncology.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2009
    Review
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

David F RansohoffDepartment of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7080, USA. ransohof@med.unc.edu
Christopher Martin
Wesley S Wiggins
Ben A Hitt
Temitope O Keku
Joseph A Galanko
Robert S Sandler
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USUniversity Gastroenterology · US

Funding

PILOT AND FEASIBILITY STUDIESP30DK034987 · NIDDK · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI ROBERT S. SANDLER · 1985 to 2026
$30.5M
RISK FACTORS FOR COLON ADENOMASR01CA044684 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI SANDLER, ROBERT S. · 1988 to 2010
$4.6M
NCI NIH HHS 2-R01-CA044684NCI NIH HHS R01 CA044684NIDDK NIH HHS 5P30DK034987NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK034987
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A noninvasive blood test that could reliably detect early colorectal cancer or large adenomas would provide an important advance in colon cancer screening. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a serum proteomics assay could discriminate between persons with and without a large (> or =1 cm) colon adenoma. To avoid problems of "bias" that have affected many studies about molecular markers for diagnosis, specimens were obtained from a previously conducted study of colorectal cancer etiology in which bloods had been collected before the presence or absence of neoplasm had been determined by colonoscopy, helping to assure that biases related to differences in sample collection and handling would be avoided. Mass spectra of 65 unblinded serum samples were acquired using a nanoelectrospray ionization source on a QSTAR-XL mass spectrometer. Classification patterns were developed using the ProteomeQuest algorithm, performing measurements twice on each specimen, and then applied to a blinded validation set of 70 specimens. After removing 33 specimens that had discordant results, the "test group" comprised 37 specimens that had never been used in training. Although in the primary analysis, no discrimination was found, a single post hoc analysis, done after hemolyzed specimens had been removed, showed a sensitivity of 78%, a specificity of 53%, and an accuracy of 63% (95% confidence interval, 53-72%). The results of this study, although preliminary, suggest that further study of serum proteomics, in a larger number of appropriate specimens, could be useful. They also highlight the importance of understanding sources of "noise" and "bias" in studies of proteomics assays.

Indexed as

AdenomaAlgorithmsBiomarkers, TumorBlood ProteinsColonic NeoplasmsHumansNeoplasm ProteinsProteomicsSpectrometry, Mass, Electrospray IonizationBiomarkers, TumorBlood ProteinsNeoplasm Proteins

Identifiers

PMID18708413
PMCPMC2561171
OpenAlexW2134752385

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.