Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28884012›Full record

ArticleFuture science OA2017

Performance of seven criteria to assess CA125 increments among ovarian cancer patients monitored during first-line chemotherapy and the post-therapy follow-up period.

Suher O Abu Hassan, Dorte L Nielsen, Malgorzata K Tuxen, Per H Petersen, György Sölétormos

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Future science OA, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. A Refinement of Clinical Tumor Marker Monitoring: Why Not Use an Inverse Value of Doubling Time?Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2021
    Article
  3. Prognostic Significance of CA125 Dynamic Change for Progression Free Survival in Patients with Epithelial Ovarian Carcinoma.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2020
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors.

Suher O Abu HassanDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry, Nordsjællands Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Hillerød, Denmark.
Dorte L NielsenDepartment of Oncology, Herlev & Gentofte Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Herlev, Denmark.
Malgorzata K TuxenDepartment of Oncology, Herlev & Gentofte Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Herlev, Denmark.
Per H PetersenDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry, Nordsjællands Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Hillerød, Denmark.
György SölétormosDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry, Nordsjællands Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Hillerød, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo investigate seven CA125 criteria to monitor progressive ovarian cancer among patients with stage IC-IV disease. MATERIALS &

methodsFour criteria were used to asses CA125 increments starting from concentrations ≥35 U/ml and three criteria to asses increments starting from concentrations <35 U/ml.

resultsA total of 231 patients were allocated to CA125 monitoring. The performances of the CA125 criteria were similar with sensitivities of 30-55%, negative predictive values of 28-46%, positive predictive values of 90-100% and median lead times of 26-87 days.

conclusionThe criteria showed low sensitivity and inability to exclude progressive ovarian cancer. The study suggests that CA125 information cannot stand alone but should be considered used in conjunction with other investigative procedures.

Indexed as

assessment CA125 criteriaCA125CA125 incrementsclinical progressionlead timemonitoringovarian cancer

Identifiers

PMID28884012
PMCPMC5583662

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.