Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24296751›Full record

ArticleThe American journal of gastroenterology2014

Autoantibodies as potential biomarkers for the early detection of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Yi-Wei Xu, Yu-Hui Peng, Bo Chen, Zhi-Yong Wu, Jian-Yi Wu, Jin-Hui Shen, Chun-Peng Zheng, Shao-Hong Wang, Hai-Peng Guo, En-Min Li and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The American journal of gastroenterology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 77 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
77citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

77 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 118 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Serum autoantibodies in the early detection of esophageal cancer: a systematic review.Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine · 2015
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

17 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Yi-Wei Xu1] Institute of Oncologic Pathology, The Key Laboratory of Molecular Biology for High Cancer Incidence Coastal Chaoshan Area, Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, Guangdong, China [2] Department of Clinical Laboratory, the Cancer Hospital of Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, Guangdong, China.
Yu-Hui PengDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, the Cancer Hospital of Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, Guangdong, China.
Bo ChenInstitute of Oncologic Pathology, The Key Laboratory of Molecular Biology for High Cancer Incidence Coastal Chaoshan Area, Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, Guangdong, China.
Zhi-Yong Wu1] Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, The Key Laboratory of Molecular Biology for High Cancer Incidence Coastal Chaoshan Area, Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, Guangdong, China [2] Department of Oncology Surgery, Shantou Central Hospital, Affiliated Shantou Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Shantou, Guangdong, China.
Jian-Yi WuDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, The Key Laboratory of Molecular Biology for High Cancer Incidence Coastal Chaoshan Area, Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, Guangdong, China.
Jin-Hui ShenDepartment of Pathology, Shantou Central Hospital, Affiliated Shantou Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Shantou, Guangdong, China.
Chun-Peng ZhengDepartment of Oncology Surgery, Shantou Central Hospital, Affiliated Shantou Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Shantou, Guangdong, China.
Shao-Hong WangDepartment of Pathology, Shantou Central Hospital, Affiliated Shantou Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Shantou, Guangdong, China.
Hai-Peng GuoDepartment of Head and Neck Surgery, the Cancer Hospital of Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, Guangdong, China.
En-Min LiDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, The Key Laboratory of Molecular Biology for High Cancer Incidence Coastal Chaoshan Area, Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, Guangdong, China.
Li-Yan XuInstitute of Oncologic Pathology, The Key Laboratory of Molecular Biology for High Cancer Incidence Coastal Chaoshan Area, Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, Guangdong, China.
Shantou Central Hospital · CNShantou University · CNCancer Hospital of Shantou University Medical College · CNShantou University Medical College · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesEsophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is one of the most frequent causes of cancer death worldwide and effective diagnosis is needed. We assessed the diagnostic potential of an autoantibody panel that may benefit early diagnosis.

methodsWe analyzed data for patients with ESCC and normal controls in a test cohort and a validation cohort. Autoantibody levels were measured against a panel of six tumor-associated antigens (p53, NY-ESO-1, matrix metalloproteinase-7 (MMP-7), heat shock protein 70 (Hsp70), peroxiredoxin VI (Prx VI), and BMI1 polycomb ring finger oncogene (Bmi-1)) by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.

resultsWe assessed serum autoantibodies in 513 participants: 388 with ESCC and 125 normal controls. The validation cohort comprised 371 participants: 237 with ESCC, and 134 normal controls. Autoantibodies to at least 1 of 6 antigens demonstrated a sensitivity/specificity of 57% (95% confidence interval (CI): 52-62%)/95% (95% CI: 89-98%) and 51% (95% CI: 45-57%)/96% (95% CI: 91-99%) in the test and validation cohorts, respectively. Measurement of the autoantibody panel could differentiate early-stage ESCC patients from normal controls (sensitivity 45% (95% CI: 32-59%) and specificity 95% (95% CI: 89-98%) in the test cohort; 46% (95% CI: 35-58%) and 96% (95% CI: 91-99%) in the validation cohort). In either cohort, no significant differences were seen when patients were subdivided by age, gender, smoking status, size of tumor, site of tumor, depth of tumor invasion, histological grade, lymph node status, TNM stage, or early-stage and late-stage groups.

conclusionsMeasurement of an autoantibody response to multiple tumor-associated antigens in an optimized panel assay, to help discriminate early-stage ESCC patients from normal controls, may aid in early detection of ESCC.

Indexed as

Antigens, NeoplasmAutoantibodiesCarcinoma, Squamous CellEsophageal NeoplasmsAdultAgedBiomarkers, TumorCohort StudiesEarly Detection of CancerEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayEsophageal Squamous Cell CarcinomaFemaleHumansLymphatic MetastasisMaleMiddle AgedAntigens, NeoplasmAutoantibodiesBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID24296751
PMCPMC3887578
OpenAlexW2109755708

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.