Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29439651›Full record

SynthesisBMC cancer2018

Serum and blood based biomarkers for lung cancer screening: a systematic review.

Gavin C W Chu, Kim Lazare, Frank Sullivan

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
7.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

61 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 92 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Biomarkers Suitable for Early Detection of Intrathoracic Cancers in Primary Care: A Systematic Review.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Gavin C W ChuToronto Western Hospital Family Health Team, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, 2W428, 399 Bathurst Street, Toronto, ON, M5T 2S8, Canada.
Kim LazareNorth York General Hospital Family Medicine Teaching Unit, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, 4 South, 4001 Leslie Street, Toronto, ON, M6H 2Z7, Canada.
Frank SullivanDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, 500 University Avenue, 5th Floor, Room 348, Toronto, ON, M5G 1V7, Canada. fms20@st-andrews.ac.uk.
University of Toronto · CANorth York General Hospital · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLung cancer is the second most common cancer and the leading cause of cancer death for both men and women. Although low-dose CT (LDCT) is recommended for lung cancer screening in high-risk populations and may decrease lung cancer mortality, there is a need to improve the accuracy of lung cancer screening to decrease over-diagnosis and morbidity. Blood and serum-based biomarkers, including EarlyCDT-lung and microRNA based biomarkers, are promising adjuncts to LDCT in lung cancer screening. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of EarlyCDT-lung, micro-RNA signature classifier (MSC), and miR-test, and their impact on lung cancer-related mortality and all-cause mortality.

methodsReferences were identified using searches of PubMed, EMBASE, and Ovid Medline® from January 2000 to November 2015. Phase three or greater studies in the English language evaluating the diagnostic performance of EarlyCDT-lung, MSC, and miR-test were selected for inclusion.

resultsThree phase 3 studies were identified, one evaluating EarlyCDT-lung, one evaluating miR-Test, and one evaluating MSC respectively. No phase 4 or 5 studies were identified. All three biomarker assays show promise for the detection of lung cancer. MSC shows promise when used in conjunction with LDCT for lung cancer detection, achieving a positive likelihood ratio of 18.6 if both LDCT and MSC are positive, and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.03 if both LDCT and MSC are negative. However, there is a paucity of high-quality studies that can guide clinical implementation.

conclusionsThere is currently no high quality evidence to support or guide the implementation of these biomarkers in clinical practice. Reports of further research at stages four and five for these, and other promising methods, is required.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorEarly Detection of CancerGenetic TestingHumansLung NeoplasmsMass ScreeningMicroRNAsReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityBiomarkers, TumorMicroRNAsBiomarkersLung cancerPrimary health careScreeningSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID29439651
PMCPMC5812229
OpenAlexW2788703461

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.