ArticleBiomarker insights2018
Evaluation of a Serum Lung Cancer Biomarker Panel.
Article in Biomarker insights, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 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
34 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pulmonary nodules: classification, biomarkers, signaling pathways, diseases, early diagnosis and management.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2026Review
- An ultrasensitive sensing strategy based on CRISPR/Cas13a and T7 RNA polymerase amplification for detection of extracellular vesicles.Analytical sciences : the international journal of the Japan Society for Analytical Chemistry · 2025Article
- Biomarkers in lung cancer diagnosis and bronchoscopy: Current landscape and future directions.Cancer biomarkers : section A of Disease markers · 2025Review
- Precision patient selection for improved detection of circulating genetically abnormal cells in pulmonary nodules.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Prevalence of CEA, CA 125, and CA 15-3 serum tumour markers in different regions of Saudi Arabia.Saudi medical journal · 2024Article
- Lung cancer screening: where do we stand?Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2024Review
- Determination of Tumor Marker Screening for Lung Cancer Using ROC Curves.Disease markers · 2024Article
- The Early Diagnosis of Lung Cancer: Critical Gaps in the Discovery of Biomarkers.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Circulating proteome for pulmonary nodule malignancy.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2023Article
- MALDI-TOF MS Analysis of Serum Peptidome Patterns in Cervical Cancer.Biomedicines · 2023Article
- A test of miR-128-3p and miR-33a-5p in serum exosome as biomarkers for auxiliary diagnosis of non-small cell lung cancer.Journal of thoracic disease · 2023Article
- Biomarkers in Lung Cancer Screening: a Narrative Review.Current challenges in thoracic surgery · 2023Article
- Clinical Scores, Biomarkers and IT Tools in Lung Cancer Screening-Can an Integrated Approach Overcome Current Challenges?Cancers · 2023Review
- Prognostic evaluation of preoperative serum tumor marker-negative cases in non-small cell lung cancer: A retrospective study.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2023Article
- Assessment of circulating biomarkers for detection of lung cancer in a high-risk cohort.Cancer biomarkers : section A of Disease markers · 2023Article
- SCLC: Epidemiology, Risk Factors, Genetic Susceptibility, Molecular Pathology, Screening, and Early Detection.Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer · 2023Review
- Stem signatures associating SOX2 antibody helps to define diagnosis and prognosis prediction with esophageal cancer.Annals of medicine · 2022Article
- The Potential Role of MUC16 (CA125) Biomarker in Lung Cancer: A Magic Biomarker but with Adversity.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Circulating mitochondrial DNA as a biomarker for lung cancer screening.Translational lung cancer research · 2022Article
- Age-stratified and gender-specific reference intervals of six tumor markers panel of lung cancer: A geographic-based multicenter study in China.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA panel of 3 serum proteins and 1 autoantibody has been developed to assist with the detection of lung cancer. We aimed to validate the accuracy of the biomarker panel in an independent test set and explore the impact of adding a fourth serum protein to the panel, as well as the impact of combining molecular and clinical variables.
methodsThe training set of serum samples was purchased from commercially available biorepositories. The testing set was from a biorepository at the Cleveland Clinic. All lung cancer and control subjects were >50 years old and had smoked a minimum of 20 pack-years. A panel of biomarkers including CEA (carcinoembryonic antigen), CYFRA21-1 (cytokeratin-19 fragment 21-1), CA125 (carbohydrate antigen 125), HGF (hepatocyte growth factor), and NY-ESO-1 (New York esophageal cancer-1 antibody) was measured using immunoassay techniques. The multiple of the median method, multivariate logistic regression, and random forest modeling was used to analyze the results.
resultsThe training set consisted of 604 patient samples (268 with lung cancer and 336 controls) and the testing set of 400 patient samples (155 with lung cancer and 245 controls). With a threshold established from the training set, the sensitivity and specificity of both the 4- and 5-biomarker panels on the testing set was 49% and 96%, respectively. Models built on the testing set using only clinical variables had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.68, using the biomarker panel 0.81 and by combining clinical and biomarker variables 0.86.
conclusionsThis study validates the accuracy of a panel of proteins and an autoantibody in a population relevant to lung cancer detection and suggests a benefit to combining clinical features with the biomarker results.
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.