ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2012
Improved classification of breast cancer peptide and protein profiles by combining two serum workup procedures.
Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Plasma Peptidome Pattern of Breast Cancer Using Magnetic Beads-Based Plasma Fractionation and MALDI-TOF MS: A Case Control Study in EgyptAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2019Article
- Distribution based Fuzzy Estimate Spectral Clustering for Cancer Detection with Protein Sequence and Structural MotifsAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2018Article
- Application of a Serum Protein Signature for Pancreatic Cancer to Separate Cases from Controls in a Pancreatic Surveillance Cohort.Translational oncology · 2016Article
- Article
- Serum peptide signatures for pancreatic cancer based on mass spectrometry: a comparison to CA19-9 levels and routine imaging techniques.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDetection of breast cancer at early stage increases patient's survival. Mass spectrometry-based protein analysis of serum samples is a promising approach to obtain biomarker profiles for early detection. A combination of commonly applied solid-phase extraction procedures for clean-up may increase the number of detectable peptides and proteins. In this study, we have evaluated whether the classification performance of breast cancer profiles improves by using two serum workup procedures.
methodsSerum samples from 105 breast cancer patients and 202 healthy volunteers were processed according to a standardized protocol implemented on a high-end liquid-handling robot. Peptide and protein enrichments were carried out using weak-cation exchange (WCX) and reversed-phase (RP) C18 magnetic beads. Profiles were acquired on a matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight (MALDI-TOF) mass spectrometer. In this way, two different biomarker profiles were obtained for each serum sample, yielding a WCX- and RPC18-dataset.
resultsThe profiles were statistically evaluated with double cross-validation. Classification results of WCX- and RPC18-datasets were determined for each set separately and for the combination of both sets. Sensitivity and specificity were 82 and 87 % (WCX) and 73 and 93 % (RPC18) for the individual workup procedures. These values increased up to 84 and 95 %, respectively, upon combining the data.
conclusionIt was found that MALDI-TOF peptide and protein profiles can be used for classification of breast cancer with high sensitivity and specificity. The classification performance even improved when two workup procedures were applied, since these provide a greater number of features (proteins).
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.