Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26962828›Full record

Trial reportMedicine2016

Identifying Thoracic Malignancies Through Pleural Fluid Biomarkers: A Predictive Multivariate Model.

José M Porcel, Aureli Esquerda, Montserrat Martínez-Alonso, Silvia Bielsa, Antonieta Salud

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Pleural Effusion in Adults-Etiology, Diagnosis, and Treatment.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2019
    Review
  8. Observational
  9. Biomarkers in the diagnosis of pleural diseases: a 2018 update.Therapeutic advances in respiratory disease
    Review
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

José M PorcelFrom the Pleural Medicine Unit (JMP, SB); Departments of Internal Medicine, Laboratory Medicine (AE); Biostatistics (MMA); and Oncology-Hematology (AS), Arnau de Vilanova University Hospital, Biomedical Research Institute of Lleida, Lleida, Spain.
Aureli Esquerda
Montserrat Martínez-Alonso
Silvia Bielsa
Antonieta Salud
Creative Commons · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The diagnosis of malignant pleural effusions may be challenging when cytological examination of aspirated pleural fluid is equivocal or noncontributory. The purpose of this study was to identify protein candidate biomarkers differentially expressed in the pleural fluid of patients with mesothelioma, lung adenocarcinoma, lymphoma, and tuberculosis (TB).A multiplex protein biochip comprising 120 biomarkers was used to determine the pleural fluid protein profile of 29 mesotheliomas, 29 lung adenocarcinomas, 12 lymphomas, and 35 tuberculosis. The relative abundance of these predetermined biomarkers among groups served to establish the differential diagnosis of: malignant versus benign (TB) effusions, lung adenocarcinoma versus mesothelioma, and lymphoma versus TB. The selected putative markers were validated using widely available commercial techniques in an independent sample of 102 patients.Significant differences were found in the protein expressions of metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9), cathepsin-B, C-reactive protein, and chondroitin sulfate between malignant and TB effusions. When integrated into a scoring model, these proteins yielded 85% sensitivity, 100% specificity, and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.98 for labeling malignancy in the verification sample. For lung adenocarcinoma-mesothelioma discrimination, combining CA19-9, CA15-3, and kallikrein-12 had maximal discriminatory capacity (65% sensitivity, 100% specificity, AUC 0.94); figures which also refer to the validation set. Last, cathepsin-B in isolation was only moderately useful (sensitivity 89%, specificity 62%, AUC 0.75) in separating lymphomatous and TB effusions. However, this last differentiation improved significantly when cathepsin-B was used with respect to the patient's age (sensitivity 72%, specificity 100%, AUC 0.94).In conclusion, panels of 4 (i.e., MMP-9, cathepsin-B, C-reactive protein, chondroitin sulfate), or 3 (i.e., CA19-9, CA15-3, kallikrein-12) different protein biomarkers on pleural fluid samples are highly discriminative for signaling a malignant versus tuberculous effusion, or lung adenocarcinoma versus mesothelioma, respectively. Cathepsin-B could also be helpful in establishing the presence of a lymphomatous effusion versus that of TB, if the patient's age is simultaneously taken into consideration.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBiomarkers, TumorDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPleural Effusion, MalignantPredictive Value of TestsRetrospective StudiesThoracentesisThoracic NeoplasmsBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID26962828
PMCPMC4998909
OpenAlexW2295646879

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.