ArticleBritish journal of cancer2010
Pleural fluid analysis of lung cancer vs benign inflammatory disease patients.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identifying Thoracic Malignancies Through Pleural Fluid Biomarkers: A Predictive Multivariate Model.Medicine · 2016Trial
- Prognostic value of CYFRA 21 - 1 and Ki67 in advanced NSCLC patients with wild-type EGFR.BMC cancer · 2023Article
- Pleural biomarkers in diagnostics of malignant pleural effusion: a narrative review.Translational lung cancer research · 2021Review
- Mesothelium and Malignant Mesothelioma.Journal of developmental biology · 2019Review
- Comparative Analysis of Mean Pleural Fluid D-dimer Level in Malignant and Non-Malignant Pleural Effusion Patients.Tanaffos · 2019Article
- Lipidomic Profiling of Lung Pleural Effusion Identifies Unique Metabotype for EGFR Mutants in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- Assessment of a panel of tumor markers for the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant effusions by well-based reverse phase protein array.Diagnostic pathology · 2015Article
- Intelligently targeted drug delivery and enhanced antitumor effect by gelatinase-responsive nanoparticles.PloS one · 2013Article
- Calprotectin: a novel biomarker for the diagnosis of pleural effusion.British journal of cancer · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCorrect diagnosis of pleural effusion (PE) as either benign or malignant is crucial, although conventional cytological evaluation is of limited diagnostic accuracy, with relatively low sensitivity rates.
methodsWe identified biological markers accurately detected in a simple PE examination. We analysed data from 19 patients diagnosed with lung cancer (nine adeno-Ca, five non-small-cell Ca (not specified), four squamous-cell Ca, one large-cell Ca) and 22 patients with benign inflammatory pathologies: secondary to trauma, pneumonia or TB.
resultsPleural effusion concentrations of seven analysed biological markers were significantly lower in lung cancer patients than in benign inflammatory patients, especially in matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-9, MMP-3 and CycD1 (lower by 65% (P<0.000003), 40% (P<0.0007) and 34% (P<0.0001), respectively), and in Ki67, ImAnOx, carbonyls and p27. High rates of sensitivity and specificity values were found for MMP-9, MMP-3 and CycD1: 80 and 100%; 87 and 73%; and 87 and 82%, respectively.
conclusionAlthough our results are of significant merit in both the clinical and pathogenetic aspects of lung cancer, further research aimed at defining the best combination for marker analysis is warranted. The relative simplicity in analysing these markers in any routine hospital laboratory may result in its acceptance as a new diagnostic tool.
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.