Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25827090›Full record

ArticlePathology oncology research : POR2015

Evaluation of Cell-Free Urine microRNAs Expression for the Use in Diagnosis of Ovarian and Endometrial Cancers. A Pilot Study.

Luděk Záveský, Eva Jandáková, Radovan Turyna, Lucie Langmeierová, Vít Weinberger, Lenka Záveská Drábková, Martina Hůlková, Aleš Hořínek, Daniela Dušková, Jaroslav Feyereisl and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pathology oncology research : POR, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 80 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

12 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Luděk ZáveskýInstitute of Biology and Medical Genetics, the First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University Prague and General University Hospital in Prague, Albertov 4, CZ-128 00, Prague 2, the Czech Republic, ludek.zavesky@gmail.com.
Eva Jandáková
Radovan Turyna
Lucie Langmeierová
Vít Weinberger
Lenka Záveská Drábková
Martina Hůlková
Aleš Hořínek
Daniela Dušková
Jaroslav Feyereisl
Luboš Minář
Milada Kohoutová
General University Hospital in Prague · CZUniversity Hospital Brno · CZÚstav pro Péči o Matku a Dítě · CZCharles University · CZCzech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Molecular Genetics · CZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Among gynaecological cancers, epithelial ovarian cancers are the most deadly cancers while endometrial cancers are the most common diseases. Efforts to establish relevant novel diagnostic, screening and prognostic markers are aimed to help reduce the high level of mortality, chemoresistance and recurrence, particularly in ovarian cancer. MicroRNAs, the class of post-transcriptional regulators, have emerged as the promising diagnostic and prognostic markers associated with various diseased states recently. Urine has been shown as the source of microRNAs several years ago; however, there has been lack of information on urine microRNA expression in ovarian and endometrial cancers till now. In this pilot study, we examined the expression of candidate cell-free urine microRNAs in ovarian cancer and endometrial cancer patients using quantitative real-time PCR. We compared the expression between pre- and post-surgery ovarian cancer samples, and between patients with ovarian and endometrial cancers and healthy controls, within three types of experiments. These experiments evaluated three different isolation methods of urine RNA, representing two supernatant and one exosome fractions of extracellular microRNA. In ovarian cancer, we found miR-92a significantly up-regulated, and miR-106b significantly down-regulated in comparison with control samples. In endometrial cancer, only miR-106b was found down-regulated significantly compared to control samples. Using exosome RNA, no significant de-regulations in microRNAs expression could be found in either of the cancers investigated. We propose that more research should now focus on confirming the diagnostic potential of urine microRNAs in gynaecological cancers using more clinical samples and large-scale expression profiling methods.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overBiomarkers, TumorCase-Control StudiesDown-RegulationEndometrial NeoplasmsExosomesFemaleHumansMicroRNAsMiddle AgedOvarian NeoplasmsPilot ProjectsPrognosisUp-RegulationBiomarkers, TumorMicroRNAs

Identifiers

PMID25827090
OpenAlexW1980197809

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.