ArticlePloS one2012
Bladder cancer diagnosis and identification of clinically significant disease by combined urinary detection of Mcm5 and nuclear matrix protein 22.
Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- Noninvasive Tests for Bladder Cancer Detection and Surveillance: A Systematic Review of Commercially Available Assays.Bladder cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2024Pooled it
- Urinary biomarkers for bladder cancer diagnosis and NMIBC follow-up: a systematic review.World journal of urology · 2023Pooled it
- Nanotechnology in Cancer Therapy: How Nanoparticles Are Shaping the Future of Personalized Treatment.ACS nano medicine · 2026Review
- Review
- The KLF16/MYC feedback loop is a therapeutic target in bladder cancer.Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR · 2024Article
- Article
- Liquid Biopsy Biomarkers in Urine: A Route towards Molecular Diagnosis and Personalized Medicine of Bladder Cancer.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Review
- Comparison of the clinical usefulness of different urinary tests for the initial detection of bladder cancer: a systematic review.Current urology · 2021Review
- Comparison of the performances of the ADXBLADDER test and urinary cytology in the follow-up of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a blinded prospective multicentric study.BJU international · 2021Article
- Biomarkers for Precision Urothelial Carcinoma Diagnosis: Current Approaches and the Application of Single-Cell Technologies.Cancers · 2021Review
- MCM5 urine expression (ADXBLADDER) is a reliable biomarker of high-risk non- muscle-invasive bladder cancer recurrence: A prospective matched case-control study.Cancer biomarkers : section A of Disease markers · 2021Article
- The diagnostic and prognostic value of nuclear matrix protein 22 in bladder cancer.Translational cancer research · 2020Article
- Minichromosome maintenance protein 5 is an important pathogenic factor of oral squamous cell carcinoma.Oncology letters · 2020Article
- Aberrantly glycosylated integrin α3β1 is a unique urinary biomarker for the diagnosis of bladder cancer.Aging · 2020Article
- MCM5 promotes tumour proliferation and correlates with the progression and prognosis of renal cell carcinoma.International urology and nephrology · 2019Article
- Observational
- Risk factors for development of primary bladder squamous cell carcinoma.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2017Article
- Treatment of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer with Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG): Biological markers and simulation studies.BBA clinical · 2015Review
- Translational progress on tumor biomarkers.Thoracic cancer · 2015Review
- Transient association of MCM complex proteins with the nuclear matrix during initiation of mammalian DNA replication.Cell cycle (Georgetown, Tex.) · 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
16 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUrinary biomarkers for bladder cancer detection are constrained by inadequate sensitivity or specificity. Here we evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of Mcm5, a novel cell cycle biomarker of aberrant growth, alone and in combination with NMP22.
methods1677 consecutive patients under investigation for urinary tract malignancy were recruited to a prospective blinded observational study. All patients underwent ultrasound, intravenous urography, cystoscopy, urine culture and cytologic analysis. An immunofluorometric assay was used to measure Mcm5 levels in urine cell sediments. NMP22 urinary levels were determined with the FDA-approved NMP22® Test Kit.
resultsGenito-urinary tract cancers were identified in 210/1564 (13%) patients with an Mcm5 result and in 195/1396 (14%) patients with an NMP22 result. At the assay cut-point where sensitivity and specificity were equal, the Mcm5 test detected primary and recurrent bladder cancers with 69% sensitivity (95% confidence interval = 62-75%) and 93% negative predictive value (95% CI = 92-95%). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for Mcm5 was 0.75 (95% CI = 0.71-0.79) and 0.72 (95% CI = 0.67-0.77) for NMP22. Importantly, Mcm5 combined with NMP22 identified 95% (79/83; 95% CI = 88-99%) of potentially life threatening diagnoses (i.e. grade 3 or carcinoma in situ or stage ≥pT1) with high specificity (72%, 95% CI = 69-74%).
conclusionsThe Mcm5 immunoassay is a non-invasive test for identifying patients with urothelial cancers with similar accuracy to the FDA-approved NMP22 ELISA Test Kit. The combination of Mcm5 plus NMP22 improves the detection of UCC and identifies 95% of clinically significant disease. Trials of a commercially developed Mcm5 assay suitable for an end-user laboratory alongside NMP22 are required to assess their potential clinical utility in improving diagnostic and surveillance care pathways.
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.