ArticlePloS one2017
Novel plasma telomerase detection method to improve cancer diagnostic assessment.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic Potential of Exosomes in Colorectal Cancer: Current Advances and Future Perspectives.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Telomerase Inhibitors from Natural Products and Their Anticancer Potential.International journal of molecular sciences · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe activity levels of telomerase and its mRNA have been found to be more diagnostically sensitive than cytological results in many cancerous tissues and correlate well with the clinical disease stage. Currently, there are several methods of detecting telomerase in tissues and in blood. The most commonly used method is a conventional quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) which is time and labor exhausting.
methodsWe have developed a simple and innovative blood test method that allows us to diagnose cancer and relapsed cancer in a cost- and time -effective manner. We had evaluated our novel method in two populations: 1) in vivo in three mice with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) versus one control mouse and 2) clinically in 30 cancer patients versus 10 individuals without cancer. We compared our novel method with the old conventional method. At least one sample was obtained from each patient included in the study.
resultsThe novel method substantially increased the sensitivity (from 37% to 77%, p<0.001) and negative predictive value (from 32% to 56%, p = 0.005) of the telomerase test for all cancer patients (those who were substantially treated and those who were not). There was no significant difference in telomerase activity between cancer patients and healthy volunteers using the conventional method (p = 0.13), whereas there was a significant difference using the novel method (p = 0.001).
conclusionConventional method shows no significant difference in telomerase activity between cancer patients and healthy volunteers (p = 0.13), whereas there was a significant difference using the novel method (p = 0.001).
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.