ArticleJournal of cancer prevention2016
Diagnostic Value of Combining Tumor and Inflammatory Markers in Lung Cancer.
Article in Journal of cancer prevention, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Multi-omics model is an effective means to diagnose benign and malignant pulmonary nodules.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2025Article
- Comparative Serum Proteome Profiling of Canine Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia before and after Castration.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- Review
- Integrated models of blood protein and metabolite enhance the diagnostic accuracy for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.Biomarker research · 2023Article
- Multiple biomarkers are more accurate than a combination of carbohydrate antigen 125 and human epididymis protein 4 for ovarian cancer screening.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2022Article
- iTRAQ-Based Proteomic Analysis Reveals Potential Serum Biomarkers for Pediatric Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Article
- Diagnostic Value of Combinatorial Markers in Colorectal Carcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Article
- Lack of Efficacy of Combined Carbohydrate Antigen Markers for Lung Cancer Diagnosis.Disease markers · 2020Article
- Simple and robust polymer-based sensor for rapid cancer detection using serum.Chemical communications (Cambridge, England) · 2019Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of human epididymis secretory protein 4 for lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of thoracic disease · 2019Article
- Prognostic impact of serum transthyretin in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.Molecular and clinical oncology · 2019Article
- Beyond the Biomarker: Understanding the Diverse Roles of Human Epididymis Protein 4 in the Pathogenesis of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2018Review
- Human epididymis protein 4 may not be a reliable screening biomarker for detecting lung carcinoma patients.Biomedical reports · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite major advances in lung cancer treatment, early detection remains the most promising way of improving outcomes. To detect lung cancer in earlier stages, many serum biomarkers have been tested. Unfortunately, no single biomarker can reliably detect lung cancer. We combined a set of 2 tumor markers and 4 inflammatory or metabolic markers and tried to validate the diagnostic performance in lung cancer.
methodsWe collected serum samples from 355 lung cancer patients and 590 control subjects and divided them into training and validation datasets. After measuring serum levels of 6 biomarkers (human epididymis secretory protein 4 [HE4], carcinoembryonic antigen [CEA], regulated on activation, normal T cell expressed and secreted [RANTES], apolipoprotein A2 [ApoA2], transthyretin [TTR], and secretory vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 [sVCAM-1]), we tested various sets of biomarkers for their diagnostic performance in lung cancer.
resultsIn a training dataset, the area under the curve (AUC) values were 0.821 for HE4, 0.753 for CEA, 0.858 for RANTES, 0.867 for ApoA2, 0.830 for TTR, and 0.552 for sVCAM-1. A model using all 6 biomarkers and age yielded an AUC value of 0.986 and sensitivity of 93.2% (cutoff at specificity 94%). Applying this model to the validation dataset showed similar results. The AUC value of the model was 0.988, with sensitivity of 93.33% and specificity of 92.00% at the same cutoff point used in the validation dataset. Analyses by stages and histologic subtypes all yielded similar results.
conclusionsCombining multiple tumor and systemic inflammatory markers proved to be a valid strategy in the diagnosis of lung cancer.
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.