Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30364165›Full record

ArticleDisease markers2018

Identifying the Best Marker Combination in CEA, CA125, CY211, NSE, and SCC for Lung Cancer Screening by Combining ROC Curve and Logistic Regression Analyses: Is It Feasible?

Qixian Yang, Ping Zhang, Rongqiang Wu, Kefeng Lu, Hongxing Zhou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Disease markers, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing 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

59 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Effect of Whole-Brain and Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy on Serum Levels of miR-21 and Prognosis for Lung Cancer Metastatic to the Brain.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2020
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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.

Qixian YangDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, The Affiliated Changzhou Second People's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Changzhou, Jiangsu, China.
Ping ZhangDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, The Affiliated Changzhou Second People's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Changzhou, Jiangsu, China.
Rongqiang WuDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, The Affiliated Changzhou Second People's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Changzhou, Jiangsu, China.
Kefeng LuDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, The Affiliated Changzhou Second People's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Changzhou, Jiangsu, China.
Hongxing ZhouDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, The Affiliated Changzhou Second People's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Changzhou, Jiangsu, China.ORCID 0000-0002-5788-8405

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The detection of serum biomarkers can aid in the diagnosis of lung cancer. In recent years, an increasing number of lung cancer markers have been identified, and these markers have been reported to have varying diagnostic values. A method to compare the diagnostic value of different combinations of biomarkers needs to be established to identify the best combination. In this study, automatic chemiluminescence analyzers were employed to detect the serum concentrations of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA125), cytokeratin 19 fragment (CY211), neuron-specific enolase (NSE), and squamous cell carcinoma antigen (SCC) in 780 healthy subjects, 650 patients with pneumonia, and 633 patients with lung cancer. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and logistic regression analyses were also used to evaluate the diagnostic value of single and multiple markers of lung cancer. The sensitivities of the five markers alone were lower than 65% for lung cancer screening in healthy subjects and pneumonia patients. SCC was of little value in screening lung cancer. After combining two or more markers, the areas under the curves (AUCs) did not increase with the increase in the number of markers. For healthy subjects, the best marker for lung cancer screening was the combination CEA + CA125, and the positive cutoff range was 0.577 CEA + 0.035 CA125 > 2.084. Additionally, for patients with pneumonia, the best screening markers displayed differences in terms of sex but not age. The best screening marker for male patients with pneumonia was the combination CEA + CY211 with a positive cutoff range of 0.008 CEA + 0.068 CY211 > 0.237, while that for female patients with pneumonia was CEA > 2.73 ng/mL, which could be regarded as positive. These results showed that a two-marker combination is more suitable than a multimarker combination for the serological screening of tumors. Combined ROC curve and logistic regression analyses are effective for identifying the best markers for lung cancer screening.

Indexed as

AgedAntigens, NeoplasmCA-125 AntigenCarcinoembryonic AntigenCase-Control StudiesFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansKeratin-19Logistic ModelsLung NeoplasmsMaleMembrane ProteinsMiddle AgedPhosphopyruvate HydrataseROC CurveAntigens, NeoplasmCA-125 AntigenCarcinoembryonic AntigenKeratin-19Membrane ProteinsMUC16 protein, humanPhosphopyruvate HydrataseSerpinssquamous cell carcinoma-related antigen

Identifiers

PMID30364165
PMCPMC6188592

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.