Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22792272›Full record

ArticlePloS one2012

Bladder cancer diagnosis and identification of clinically significant disease by combined urinary detection of Mcm5 and nuclear matrix protein 22.

John D Kelly, Tim J Dudderidge, Alex Wollenschlaeger, Odu Okoturo, Keith Burling, Fiona Tulloch, Ian Halsall, Teresa Prevost, Andrew Toby Prevost, Joana C Vasconcelos and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. The KLF16/MYC feedback loop is a therapeutic target in bladder cancer.Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Risk factors for development of primary bladder squamous cell carcinoma.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2017
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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

16 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

John D KellyDepartment of Pathology and Cancer Institute, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Tim J Dudderidge
Alex Wollenschlaeger
Odu Okoturo
Keith Burling
Fiona Tulloch
Ian Halsall
Teresa Prevost
Andrew Toby Prevost
Joana C Vasconcelos
Wendy Robson
Hing Y Leung
Nikhil Vasdev
Robert S Pickard
Gareth H Williams
Kai Stoeber
University of Cambridge · GBFreeman Hospital · GBUniversity College London · GBWolfson Foundation · GBAddenbrooke's Hospital · GBImperial College London · GBKing's College London · GBUniversity of Glasgow · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 15151Cancer Research UK C428/A3441
6 · The paper itself

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

AgedArea Under CurveBiomarkers, TumorCarcinomaCarcinoma, Transitional CellCell Cycle ProteinsFalse Positive ReactionsFemaleHumansLimit of DetectionMaleMiddle AgedNuclear ProteinsROC CurveStatistics, NonparametricUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsBiomarkers, TumorCell Cycle ProteinsMCM5 protein, humannuclear matrix protein 22Nuclear Proteins

Identifiers

PMID22792272
PMCPMC3392249
OpenAlexW2107648046

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.