Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27683350›Full record

ArticleEJIFCC2010

Use of Biomarkers in Screening for Cancer.

Michael J Duffy

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EJIFCC, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
17.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 69 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Evaluation of a CLEIA automated assay system for the detection of a panel of tumor markers.Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine · 2013
    Article
  5. Tumor markers in clinical practice: a review focusing on common solid cancers.Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2013
    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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Michael J DuffyDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, St Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin 4, UCD School of Medicine and Medical Science, Conway Institute of Biomolecular and Biomedical Research, University College Dublin , Dublin 4, Ireland.
University College Dublin · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundScreening for premalignant lesions or early invasive disease has the potential to reduce mortality from cancer. Potential screening tests for malignancy include measurement of (bio)markers. CONTENT: The literature relevant to the use of biomarkers as screening tests for cancer was reviewed with particular attention given to systematic reviews, prospective randomised trials and guidelines published by Expert Panels. Because of their ease of measurement, several biomarkers have been evaluated or are currently undergoing evaluation as screening tests for early malignancy. These include the use of vanillymandelic acid and homovanillic acid in screening for neuroblastoma in newborn infants, AFP in screening for hepatocellular cancer in high-risk subjects, CA 125 in combination with transvaginal ultrasound (TVU) in screening for ovarian cancer, PSA in screening for prostate cancer and fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) in screening for CRC. Of these markers, only the use of FOBT in screening for CRC has been shown to reduce mortality from cancer. Large randomized prospective trials are currently in progress aimed at evaluating the potential value of PSA screening in reducing mortality from prostate cancer and CA 125 in combination with TVU in reducing mortality form ovarian cancer.

conclusionAlthough biomarkers have many attractions as screening tests, inadequate sensitivity and specificity, when combined with the low prevalence of cancer in asymptomatic subjects, limit their value for the early detection of malignancy. Screening has been defined as the systematic application of a test to identify subjects at sufficient risk of a specific disorder to benefit from further investigation or direct preventive action, among persons who have not sought medical attention on account of symptoms of that disorder (1). To be of value, screening must detect disease earlier and result in an efficacious treatment and the earlier use of efficacious treatment must lead to better outcome compared to treatment available at the onset of symptoms (2). Screening differs from diagnosis in that the aim is to detect disease or a predisease state when subjects are asymptomatic. Currently, only a small number of screening tests have been shown to reduce mortality from cancer. These include mammography in screening for breast cancer (especially in women >50 years of age), the Papanicalaou (PAP) test in screening for cervical cancer and fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) in screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) (for review, see refs. 2,3). Compared to procedures such as radiology, cytology and endoscopy, the use of biomarkers as cancer screening tests have several advantages (4). These advantages include: Biomarkers can be measured in biological fluids such as blood and urine that can be obtained with minimal inconvenience to subjects undergoing screening. This in turn should lead to high compliance rates.For many biomarkers, automated assays are available, thus allowing the processing of large numbers of samples in a relatively short period of time.Tests for biomarkers provide quantitative results with objective endpoints.Assays for biomarkers are relatively cheap.In practice however, lack of sensitivity for early invasive disease or premalignant lesions and lack of specificity for malignancy limit the use of existing biomarkers in screening asymptomatic subjects for early malignancy (4,5). This lack of sensitivity and specificity when combined with the low prevalence of cancers in the general population means that most biomarkers, if used alone, have a low positive predictive value in screening asymptomatic populations. Indeed, it is the low prevalence of cancer in the general population that prohibits most biomarkers from being used alone, in screening for cancer (4,5). Despite these limitations, a number of biomarkers have either undergone or are currently undergoing evaluation as potential cancer screening tests. These markers include the use of vanillymandelic acid (VMA) and homovanillic acid (HVA) in screening for neuroblastoma in newborns, AFP in screening for hepatocellular cancer in high-risk subjects, CA 125 in combination with transvaginal ultrasound (TVU) in screening for ovarian cancer, PSA in screening for prostate cancer and fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) in screening for CRC. The aim of this article is to critically review the role of these biomarkers in screening normal-risk asymptomatic subjects for early cancer. Screening subjects with a genetic predisposition to cancer will not be discussed.

Identifiers

PMID27683350
PMCPMC4975170
OpenAlexW2261070115

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.