Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27385101›Full record

ArticleOncotarget2016

Clinical significance and diagnostic value of serum CEA, CA19-9 and CA72-4 in patients with gastric cancer.

Yao Liang, Wei Wang, Cheng Fang, Seeruttun Sharvesh Raj, Wan-Ming Hu, Qi-Wen Li, Zhi-Wei Zhou

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Oncotarget, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 79 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

79 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 116 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Genes · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Mass spectrometry analysis of intact proteinJournal of Zhejiang University. Science. B · 2024
    Article

19 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Yao LiangDepartment of Gastric and Pancreatic Surgery, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Wei WangDepartment of Gastric and Pancreatic Surgery, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Cheng FangDepartment of Gastric and Pancreatic Surgery, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Seeruttun Sharvesh RajDepartment of Gastric and Pancreatic Surgery, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Wan-Ming HuDepartment of Pathological Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Qi-Wen LiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Zhi-Wei ZhouDepartment of Gastric and Pancreatic Surgery, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South ChinaSun Yat-sen University Cancer Center · CNSun Yat-sen University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo evaluate the clinical significance of multiple serum tumor markers (TMs) in the diagnosis of gastric cancer (GC) and establish an accurate discriminant equation to identify the presence of GC.

resultsThe serum levels of CEA, CA19-9 and CA72-4 were higher in the GC group than in the control group (P < 0.005). The sensitivity of CEA, CA19-9 and CA72-4 in the diagnosis of GC was 20.1-27.6% individually and increased to 48.2% when they were considered in combination. By using the optimal cut-off value, the sensitivity of CEA, CA19-9 and CA72-4 for the diagnosis of GC was improved but remained unsatisfactory. In addition, we developed the equation Y = -2.185 - 0.015 X1 + 0.180 X2 + 1.226 X3 + 1.505 X4 + 2.749 X5 (X1 = Age, X2 = Sex, X3 =CEA, X4 = CA19-9 and X5 = CA72-4) to predict the presence of GC. This has better accuracy and diagnostic efficiency compared to the combination of TMs.

methodsSerum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), cancer antigen 19-9 (CA19-9)and cancer antigen 72-4 (CA72-4) levels were measured in a total of 2288 patients with GC and 1869 healthy volunteers or patients with benign gastric diseases. We established a diagnostic equation using a portion of the data (training set), and validate its accuracy using the other portion of the data (testing set) .

conclusionsThe diagnostic equation increases the accuracy rate for the diagnosis of GC and will be helpful in the clinic.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntigens, Tumor-Associated, CarbohydrateBiomarkers, TumorCA-19-9 AntigenCarcinoembryonic AntigenFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisROC CurveSensitivity and SpecificityAntigens, Tumor-Associated, CarbohydrateBiomarkers, TumorCA-19-9 AntigenCA-72-4 antigenCarcinoembryonic AntigenCA19-9CA72-4CEAdiagnosisgastric cancer

Identifiers

PMID27385101
PMCPMC5226529
OpenAlexW2475252027

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.