ArticleMolecular and clinical oncology2013
Combining multiple serum biomarkers in tumor diagnosis: A clinical assessment.
Article in Molecular and clinical oncology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Review
- Tumor heterogeneity assessment using single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq): applications in lung cancer for diagnosis and treatment.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- Advanced detection of cervical cancer biomarkers using engineered filamentous phage nanofibers.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2024Article
- The function of LncRNAs and their role in the prediction, diagnosis, and prognosis of lung cancer.Clinical and translational medicine · 2021Review
- Application of Lectin Microarrays for Biomarker Discovery.ChemistryOpen · 2020Review
- Diagnostic value of CA-153 and CYFRA 21-1 in predicting intraocular metastasis in patients with metastatic lung cancer.Cancer medicine · 2020Observational
- Hybrid Paper-Plastic Microchip for Flexible and High-Performance Point-of-Care Diagnostics.Advanced functional materials · 2018Article
- Circulating and tumor-associated caspase-4: a novel diagnostic and prognostic biomarker for non-small cell lung cancer.Oncotarget · 2018Article
- Identifying the Best Marker Combination in CEA, CA125, CY211, NSE, and SCC for Lung Cancer Screening by Combining ROC Curve and Logistic Regression Analyses: Is It Feasible?Disease markers · 2018Article
- Clean Colorectum at Diagnostic Colonoscopy: Subsequent Detection of Extracolonic Malignancies by Plasma Protein Biomarkers?Biomarkers in cancer · 2018Article
- Identification of serum proteins and multivariate models for diagnosis and therapeutic monitoring of lung cancer.Oncotarget · 2017Article
- Diagnostic significance of S100A2 and S100A6 levels in sera of patients with non-small cell lung cancer.Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine · 2016Article
- Clinical Utility of Circulating Tumor Cells in the Early Detection of Lung Cancer in Patients with a Solitary Pulmonary Nodule.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study aimed to assess the diagnostic/prognostic value of various clinical tumor markers, including carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), neuron-specific enolase (NSE), cytokeratin 19 (CYFRA21-1), α-fetoprotein (AFP), carbohydrate antigen-125 (CA-125), carbohydrate antigen-19.9 (CA-19.9) and ferritin, individually or in combination. The electro-chemiluminescence immunization method was performed to detect the levels of seven tumor markers in 560 cancer patients and 103 healthy subjects for comparison. The serum levels of the seven markers measured in cancer patients were higher compared to healthy subjects (P<0.05 for AFP and P<0.001 for the remaining six markers). Different markers had different sensitivity towards different types of tumors. Combining more markers significantly increased the ratios of positive diagnosis in the tumors. The diagnostic sensitivities of combining seven markers were particularly high in digestive, urinary and skeletal tumors (82, 92 and 83%, respectively). Gynecological tumors have exhibited a constant yet relatively low positive diagnosis irrespective of the use of a single marker or combined markers. However, the increase in sensitivity when combining markers was accompanied by a decrease in specificity. Generally, combining more markers increased the tumor detection rates, while a combination of the seven markers provided the highest detection rate. Combined detection showed a particularly high sensitivity in detecting respiratory, digestive and urinary system tumors, with the lowest sensitivity observed in gynecological tumors. As a result, combining tumor markers may play an important role in early tumor detection/diagnosis while the loss of specificity can be tolerated.
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.