ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2015
Serum peptide signatures for pancreatic cancer based on mass spectrometry: a comparison to CA19-9 levels and routine imaging techniques.
Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Blood-based biomarkers in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: developments over the last decade and what holds for the future- a review.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Review
- Peptide and protein assays using customizable bio-affinity arrays combined with ambient ionization mass spectrometry.Chemical science · 2021Article
- Application of a Serum Protein Signature for Pancreatic Cancer to Separate Cases from Controls in a Pancreatic Surveillance Cohort.Translational oncology · 2016Article
- Developments in FTICR-MS and Its Potential for Body Fluid Signatures.International journal of molecular sciences · 2015Review
- Solid-phase extraction strategies to surmount body fluid sample complexity in high-throughput mass spectrometry-based proteomics.Journal of analytical methods in chemistry · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe detection of pancreatic tumors lacks a sensitive and specific diagnostic tool. Mass spectrometry (MS)-based profiling of serum proteins is a promising approach for discovery of new clinical biomarkers or biomarker signatures.
methodsSerum samples from pancreatic cancer (PC) patients and control individuals were collected and processed using a standardized protocol. Samples were divided in a calibration set (n = 49 PC and 110 controls) and a validation set (n = 39 PC and 75 controls). Peptide profiles were obtained using a combination of automated solid-phase extraction with reversed-phase C18 paramagnetic beads and matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight MS.
resultsLinear discriminant analysis with double cross-validation resulted in a discriminating peptide signature for PC in the calibration set with a sensitivity of 78 % and a specificity of 91 % [area under the curve (AUC) of 92 %]. Classification was validated with a sensitivity of 93 % and a specificity of 100 % (AUC of 98 %), and the results were compared with carbohydrate antigen 19-9 levels and currently available clinical imaging techniques. The ten most discriminating peptide peaks were identified as fragments of proteins involved in the clotting cascade, acute phase response and immunologic response.
conclusionsIn this study, it is shown that MS-based serum peptide profiles can discriminate between PC and control samples. The approach has great potential for high-throughput analysis in surveillance programs and appears to be most promising for patients with an inherited risk for PC, who benefit from more frequent screening.
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.