Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29854296›Full record

ArticleOncotarget2018

Improved sensitivity for detection of breast cancer by combination of miR-34a and tumor markers CA 15-3 or CEA.

Martin Zaleski, Makbule Kobilay, Lars Schroeder, Manuel Debald, Alexander Semaan, Karina Hettwer, Steffen Uhlig, Walther Kuhn, Gunther Hartmann, Stefan Holdenrieder

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Oncotarget, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Altered glycosylation in cancer: A promising target for biomarkers and therapeutics.Biochimica et biophysica acta. Reviews on cancer · 2021
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Martin ZaleskiInstitute of Clinical Chemistry and Clinical Pharmacology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Makbule KobilayInstitute of Clinical Chemistry and Clinical Pharmacology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Lars SchroederDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Manuel DebaldDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Alexander SemaanDepartment of Surgery, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Karina HettwerQuoData Statistics, Dresden, Germany.
Steffen UhligQuoData Statistics, Dresden, Germany.
Walther KuhnDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Gunther HartmannInstitute of Clinical Chemistry and Clinical Pharmacology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Stefan HoldenriederInstitute of Clinical Chemistry and Clinical Pharmacology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
University Hospital Bonn · DECenter for Evaluation and Development · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMicroRNAs biomarkers have shown value for diagnosis and prognosis of various cancers. Combination with established tumor markers has rarely been done.

resultsBreast cancer patients had significantly higher serum RNA loads (AUC 0.665), lower miR-34a (AUC 0.772), higher CEA and CA 15-3 levels (AUCs 0.717 and 0.721) than healthy controls. miR-34a correlated with tumor stage and hormone receptor status. There was no significant difference between groups for all other miRNAs. Combination of miR-34a with CEA or CA 15-3 led to improved AUCs of 0.844 and 0.800, respectively. Sensitivity of miR-34a and CA 15-3 reached 56.1% at 95% specificity. When compared with benign breast diseases, combination of miR-34a (AUC 0.719) and CEA (0.623) or CA 15-3 (0.619) resulted in improved performances (0.794 and 0.741). Sensitivity of miR-34a and CA 15-3 reached 53.7% at 95% specificity.

conclusionWhile miR-34a provides valuable information for diagnosis and staging, combination with tumor markers CA15-3 or CEA improves the sensitivity for breast cancer detection. PATIENTS AND

methodsThe diagnostic relevance of the miR-21, miR-34a, miR-92a, miR-155, miR-222 and miR-let-7c was tested in sera of 103 individuals (55 breast cancer, 20 benign breast diseases, 28 healthy controls). MiRNAs were detected by quantitative rt-PCR after extraction and reverse transcription. Cel-miR-39 and miR-16 were used for normalization. Established tumor markers CEA, CA 15-3, CA 19-9 and CA 125 were measured by automatized immunoassays. Diagnostic performance was tested by areas under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and sensitivities at 90% and 95% specificity.

Indexed as

breast cancerCA 15-3CEAmiR-34amiRNA

Identifiers

PMID29854296
PMCPMC5976482
OpenAlexW2799297134

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.