Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24747429›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Prediagnostic serum biomarkers as early detection tools for pancreatic cancer in a large prospective cohort study.

Brian M Nolen, Randall E Brand, Denise Prosser, Liudmila Velikokhatnaya, Peter J Allen, Herbert J Zeh, William E Grizzle, Ying Huang, Aleksey Lomakin, Anna E Lokshin

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
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. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 66 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

66 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 94 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Diagnostic Performance of a Tumor Marker Gene Test to Personalize Serum CA19-9 Reference Ranges.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Brian M NolenUniversity of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Randall E BrandDepartment of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, University of Pittsburgh and University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Denise ProsserUniversity of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Liudmila VelikokhatnayaUniversity of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Peter J AllenDepartment of Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, United States of America.
Herbert J ZehUniversity of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America; Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
William E GrizzleDepartment of Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, United States of America.
Ying HuangFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Aleksey LomakinDepartment of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Anna E LokshinUniversity of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America; Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America; Department of Pathology, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America; Department of Ob/Gyn, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
UPMC Hillman Cancer Center · USMassachusetts Institute of Technology · USMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham · USUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical Center · US

Funding

VECTOR CORE FACILITYP30CA047904 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI Leonard J. Appleman · 1988 to 2026
$158.0M
UAB / UMN SPORE in Pancreatic CancerP50CA101955 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI BUCHSBAUM, DONALD J · 2010 to 2014
$11.1M
Urine and Serum Biomarkers for Screening and Diagnosis of Ovarian CancerR01CA108990 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI LOKSHIN, ANNA E. · 2005 to 2014
$5.3M
Multiplexed Serum Biomarkers for Pancreatic CancerU01CA117452 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI LOKSHIN, ANNA E. · 2005 to 2009
$2.7M
NCI NIH HHS 2R01CA108990NCI NIH HHS 5P30 CA047904 23NCI NIH HHS P30 CA047904NCI NIH HHS R01 CA108990NCI NIH HHS U01 CA117452NCI NIH HHS U01CA117452
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe clinical management of pancreatic cancer is severely hampered by the absence of effective screening tools.

methodsSixty-seven biomarkers were evaluated in prediagnostic sera obtained from cases of pancreatic cancer enrolled in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO).

resultsThe panel of CA 19-9, OPN, and OPG, identified in a prior retrospective study, was not effective. CA 19-9, CEA, NSE, bHCG, CEACAM1 and PRL were significantly altered in sera obtained from cases greater than 1 year prior to diagnosis. Levels of CA 19-9, CA 125, CEA, PRL, and IL-8 were negatively associated with time to diagnosis. A training/validation study using alternate halves of the PLCO set failed to identify a biomarker panel with significantly improved performance over CA 19-9 alone. When the entire PLCO set was used for training at a specificity (SP) of 95%, a panel of CA 19-9, CEA, and Cyfra 21-1 provided significantly elevated sensitivity (SN) levels of 32.4% and 29.7% in samples collected <1 and >1 year prior to diagnosis, respectively, compared to SN levels of 25.7% and 17.2% for CA 19-9 alone.

conclusionsMost biomarkers identified in previously conducted case/control studies are ineffective in prediagnostic samples, however several biomarkers were identified as significantly altered up to 35 months prior to diagnosis. Two newly derived biomarker combinations offered advantage over CA 19-9 alone in terms of SN, particularly in samples collected >1 year prior to diagnosis. However, the efficacy of biomarker-based tools remains limited at present. Several biomarkers demonstrated significant velocity related to time to diagnosis, an observation which may offer considerable potential for enhancements in early detection.

Indexed as

AgedBiomarkers, TumorCA-19-9 AntigenCohort StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOsteopontinOsteoprotegerinPancreatic NeoplasmsProspective StudiesBiomarkers, TumorCA-19-9 AntigenOsteopontinOsteoprotegerin

Identifiers

PMID24747429
PMCPMC3991628
OpenAlexW2088819114

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.