Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27355357›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Cancers Screening in an Asymptomatic Population by Using Multiple Tumour Markers.

Hsin-Yao Wang, Chia-Hsun Hsieh, Chiao-Ni Wen, Ying-Hao Wen, Chun-Hsien Chen, Jang-Jih Lu

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Laboratory Demand Management Strategies-An Overview.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hsin-Yao WangDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou, Taoyuan City, Taiwan.
Chia-Hsun HsiehDivision of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou and Chang Gung University, Taoyuan City, Taiwan.
Chiao-Ni WenDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou, Taoyuan City, Taiwan.
Ying-Hao WenDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou, Taoyuan City, Taiwan.
Chun-Hsien ChenDepartment of Information Management, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan City, Taiwan.
Jang-Jih LuDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou, Taoyuan City, Taiwan.
Chang Gung University · TWLinkou Chang Gung Memorial Hospital · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAnalytic measurement of serum tumour markers is one of commonly used methods for cancer risk management in certain areas of the world (e.g. Taiwan). Recently, cancer screening based on multiple serum tumour markers has been frequently discussed. However, the risk-benefit outcomes appear to be unfavourable for patients because of the low sensitivity and specificity. In this study, cancer screening models based on multiple serum tumour markers were designed using machine learning methods, namely support vector machine (SVM), k-nearest neighbour (KNN), and logistic regression, to improve the screening performance for multiple cancers in a large asymptomatic population.

methodsAFP, CEA, CA19-9, CYFRA21-1, and SCC were determined for 20 696 eligible individuals. PSA was measured in men and CA15-3 and CA125 in women. A variable selection process was applied to select robust variables from these serum tumour markers to design cancer detection models. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value, area under the curve, and Youden index of the models based on single tumour markers, combined test, and machine learning methods were compared. Moreover, relative risk reduction, absolute risk reduction (ARR), and absolute risk increase (ARI) were evaluated.

resultsTo design cancer detection models using machine learning methods, CYFRA21-1 and SCC were selected for women, and all tumour markers were selected for men. SVM and KNN models significantly outperformed the single tumour markers and the combined test for men. All 3 studied machine learning methods outperformed single tumour markers and the combined test for women. For either men or women, the ARRs were between 0.003-0.008; the ARIs were between 0.119-0.306.

conclusionMachine learning methods outperformed the combined test in analysing multiple tumour markers for cancer detection. However, cancer screening based solely on the application of multiple tumour markers remains unfavourable because of the inadequate PPV, ARR, and ARI, even when machine learning methods were incorporated into the analysis.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerAdultAgedalpha-FetoproteinsAntigens, NeoplasmBiomarkers, TumorCA-19-9 AntigenCarcinoembryonic AntigenFemaleHumansKeratin-19MaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsRegression AnalysisRetrospective StudiesAFP protein, humanalpha-Fetoproteinsantigen CYFRA21.1Antigens, NeoplasmBiomarkers, TumorCA-19-9 AntigenCarcinoembryonic AntigenKeratin-19Serpinssquamous cell carcinoma-related antigen

Identifiers

PMID27355357
PMCPMC4927114
OpenAlexW2461179076

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.