Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24498409›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Autoantibody profiling for lung cancer screening longitudinal retrospective analysis of CT screening cohorts.

Kourtney Trudgen, Nada H Khattar, Eric Bensadoun, Susanne Arnold, Arnold J Stromberg, Edward A Hirschowitz

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. 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

6 authors.

Kourtney TrudgenDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, United States of America.
Nada H KhattarDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, United States of America.
Eric BensadounDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, United States of America.
Susanne ArnoldDivision of Medical Oncology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, United States of America.
Arnold J StrombergDepartment of Statistics, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, United States of America.
Edward A HirschowitzDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, United States of America ; Lexington Veteran's Administration Medical Center, Lexington, Kentucky, United States of America.

Funding

NCI NIH HHS R01 CA10032-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recommendations for lung cancer screening present a tangible opportunity to integrate predictive blood-based assays with radiographic imaging. This study compares performance of autoantibody markers from prior discovery in sample cohorts from two CT screening trials. One-hundred eighty non-cancer and 6 prevalence and 44 incidence cancer cases detected in the Mayo Lung Screening Trial were tested using a panel of six autoantibody markers to define a normal range and assign cutoff values for class prediction. A cutoff for minimal specificity and best achievable sensitivity were applied to 256 samples drawn annually for three years from 95 participants in the Kentucky Lung Screening Trial. Data revealed a discrepancy in quantile distribution between the two apparently comparable sample sets, which skewed the assay's dynamic range towards specificity. This cutoff offered 43% specificity (102/237) in the control group and accurately classified 11/19 lung cancer samples (58%), which included 4/5 cancers at time of radiographic detection (80%), and 50% of occult cancers up to five years prior to diagnosis. An apparent ceiling in assay sensitivity is likely to limit the utility of this assay in a conventional screening paradigm. Pre-analytical bias introduced by sample age, handling or storage remains a practical concern during development, validation and implementation of autoantibody assays. This report does not draw conclusions about other logical applications for autoantibody profiling in lung cancer diagnosis and management, nor its potential when combined with other biomarkers that might improve overall predictive accuracy.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerAgedAntibodies, NeoplasmBiomarkers, TumorCase-Control StudiesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIncidenceLongitudinal StudiesLung NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPrognosisProspective StudiesAntibodies, NeoplasmBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID24498409
PMCPMC3912196

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.