ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2017
Diagnostic accuracy of tumor markers for malignant pleural effusion: a derivation and validation study.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic accuracy of the cancer ratio for the prediction of malignant pleural effusion: evidence from a validation study and meta-analysis.Annals of medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Head-to-head comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of pleural fluid, serum carcinoembryonic antigen, and their ratio for malignant pleural effusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Effects of light's criteria on the diagnostic accuracy of pleural fluid carcinoembryonic antigen concentrations for malignant pleural effusion.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Tumor Markers in Pleural Fluid: A Comprehensive Study on Diagnostic Accuracy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- A novel approach in the identification of microRNAs in malignant pleural effusion for lung cancer diagnosis.Oncology reviews · 2025Review
- Assessment of a panel of miRNAs in serum and pleural fluid for the differential diagnosis of malignant and benign pleural effusion.Cancer biomarkers : section A of Disease markers · 2022Article
- Diagnostic Value of Six Tumor Markers for Malignant Pleural Effusion in 1,230 Patients: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.Pathology oncology research : POR · 2022Article
- Development of risk prediction models for lung cancer based on tumor markers and radiological signs.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2021Article
- Salivary microRNAs show potential as biomarkers for early diagnosis of malignant pleural effusion.Translational lung cancer research · 2020Article
- Diagnostic value of CD206Journal of thoracic disease · 2019Article
- Diagnosing malignant pleural effusion using clinical and analytical parameters.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2019Article
- Ratio of carcinoembryonic antigen in pleural fluid and serum for the diagnosis of malignant pleural effusion.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2019Article
- Diagnostic value of acid phosphatases (ACP) in differentiating reactive mesothelial cells from cancer cells in the body fluid effusions.Journal of thoracic disease · 2018Article
- Clinical value of combined detection of Carcinoembryonic Antigen and CA125 in the diagnosis of non-small cell lung cancer combined with Malignant Pleural Effusion.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
- Diagnostic accuracy of pleural fluid to serum carcinoembryonic antigen ratio and delta value for malignant pleural effusion: findings from two cohorts.Therapeutic advances in respiratory diseaseArticle
- Development and validation of a machine learning model for differential diagnosis of malignant pleural effusion using routine laboratory data.Therapeutic advances in respiratory diseaseObservational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe utility of tumor markers (TMs) for differentiating malignant pleural effusion (MPE) from benign pleural effusion (BPE) has been a subject of controversy. The majority of published studies are single center designed and lack validation. We performed a derivation and validation study in China to evaluate the diagnostic value of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) as well as carbohydrate antigen (CA) 15-3, CA 19-9 and CA 125 to differentiate between MPE and BPE.
methodsThree hundred and twenty seven pleural effusion (PE) and paired serum samples were collected from consecutive patients with MPE or BPE in Beijing (174 patients, derivation) and Wuhan (153 patients, validation) during the same period. The concentrations of four TMs were tested using chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay technology. The performance of the TMs was analyzed by standard receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.
resultsThe levels of four TMs were significantly higher in MPE than in BPE and the corresponding serum. The concentrations of CEA and CA 15-3 were more stable than the concentrations of CA 125 and CA 19-9. CEA was the best single marker for discriminating MPE from BPE. With a specificity of 100% in the total population, the highest sensitivity (37.8%) using serum was found in CEA. In addition, CEA presented 19.8% sensitivity in PE and 18.0% sensitivity in the Δ(PE-serum). For CA 15-3, the sensitivity was 32.4% in PE, 15.3% in the PE/serum ratio and 25.2% in the Δ(PE-serum).
conclusionsCEA and CA 15-3 rather than CA 125 and CA 19-9 are more reliable to differentiate between MPE and BPE. The use of the Δ(PE-serum) value in TMs, such as CEA and CA 15-3, may improve the sensitivity and specificity of the diagnosis etiology of PE.
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.