ArticleTumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine2013
Evaluation of a CLEIA automated assay system for the detection of a panel of tumor markers.
Article in Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Determination of Tumor Marker Screening for Lung Cancer Using ROC Curves.Disease markers · 2024Article
- Method Comparison and Clinical Performance of Breast Cancer Tumor Markers on Novel Multiplex Immunoassay and Automatized LOCI Technology Platforms.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Significance of serum carcinoembryonic antigen in metastatic breast cancer patients: A prospective study.World journal of clinical oncology · 2022Article
- On-Site Detection of Carcinoembryonic Antigen in Human Serum.Biosensors · 2021Article
- Comparison of Four Automated Carcinoembryonic Antigen Immunoassays: ADVIA Centaur XP, ARCHITECT I2000sr, Elecsys E170, and Unicel Dxi800.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2018Article
- Serum CA125 is a predictive marker for breast cancer outcomes and correlates with molecular subtypes.Oncotarget · 2017Article
- Low 25-OH vitamin D levels at time of diagnosis and recurrence of ovarian cancer.Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine · 2016Article
- Diagnostic impact of CEA and CA 15-3 on chemotherapy monitoring of breast cancer patients.Journal of circulating biomarkersArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tumor markers are commonly used to detect a relapse of disease in oncologic patients during follow-up. It is important to evaluate new assay systems for a better and more precise assessment, as a standardized method is currently lacking. The aim of this study was to assess the concordance between an automated chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay system (LUMIPULSE® G1200) and our reference methods using seven tumor markers. Serum samples from 787 subjects representing a variety of diagnoses, including oncologic, were analyzed using LUMIPULSE® G1200 and our reference methods. Serum values were measured for the following analytes: prostate-specific antigen (PSA), alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), cancer antigen 125 (CA125), carbohydrate antigen 15-3 (CA15-3), carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), and cytokeratin 19 fragment (CYFRA 21-1). For the determination of CEA, AFP, and PSA, an automatic analyzer based on chemiluminescence was applied as reference method. To assess CYFRA 21-1, CA125, CA19-9, and CA15-3, an immunoradiometric manual system was employed. Method comparison by Passing-Bablok analysis resulted in slopes ranging from 0.9728 to 1.9089 and correlation coefficients from 0.9977 to 0.9335. The precision of each assay was assessed by testing six serum samples. Each sample was analyzed for all tumor biomarkers in duplicate and in three different runs. The coefficients of variation were less than 6.3 and 6.2 % for within-run and between-run variation, respectively. Our data suggest an overall good interassay agreement for all markers. The comparison with our reference methods showed good precision and reliability, highlighting its usefulness in clinical laboratory's routine.
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.