Trial reportMedicine2016
Identifying Thoracic Malignancies Through Pleural Fluid Biomarkers: A Predictive Multivariate Model.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pulmonary Sarcoidosis Associated With Pleural Effusion: A Case Report.Respirology case reports · 2026Article
- Evaluating the CRP Interactome: Insights into Possible Novel Roles in Cellular Signaling and Tumorigenicity.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025Review
- Liquid Biopsy in Lung Cancer: Biomarkers for the Management of Recurrence and Metastasis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Diagnosing pleural effusions using mass spectrometry-based multiplexed targeted proteomics quantitating mid- to high-abundance markers of cancer, infection/inflammation and tuberculosis.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Development of risk prediction models for lung cancer based on tumor markers and radiological signs.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2021Article
- The value of apolipoprotein E in distinguishing benign and malignant unilateral pleural effusions.Medicine · 2020Article
- Pleural Effusion in Adults-Etiology, Diagnosis, and Treatment.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2019Review
- Differentiating Malignant from Tubercular Pleural Effusion by Cancer Ratio Plus (Cancer Ratio: Pleural Lymphocyte Count).Canadian respiratory journal · 2016Observational
- Biomarkers in the diagnosis of pleural diseases: a 2018 update.Therapeutic advances in respiratory diseaseReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.