ArticleClinical proteomics2018
A two-step strategy for identification of plasma protein biomarkers for endometrial and ovarian cancer.
Article in Clinical proteomics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lower viral loads in subjects with rhinovirus-challenged allergy despite reduced innate immunity.Annals of allergy, asthma & immunology : official publication of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology · 2022Trial
- Rhinovirus-infected preschool children with problematic wheeze have lung eosinophilic inflammation.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 2026Article
- Prospective evaluation of 92 protein biomarkers for early detection of endometrial cancer.International journal of cancer · 2025Article
- Unlocking the potential of tumor-derived DNA in urine for cancer detection: methodological challenges and opportunities.Molecular oncology · 2025Review
- Significance of Midkine Signaling in Women's Cancers: Novel Biomarker and Therapeutic Target.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Article
- Proximity extension assay revealed novel inflammatory biomarkers for follicular development and ovarian function: a prospective controlled study combining serum and follicular fluid.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Article
- Advancements in Oncoproteomics Technologies: Treading toward Translation into Clinical Practice.Proteomes · 2023Review
- Endometrial cancer diagnostic and prognostic algorithms based on proteomics, metabolomics, and clinical data: a systematic review.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
- Development of a Multiprotein Classifier for the Detection of Early Stage Ovarian Cancer.Cancers · 2022Article
- Proteomics technologies for cancer liquid biopsies.Molecular cancer · 2022Review
- Data-driven analysis of a validated risk score for ovarian cancer identifies clinically distinct patterns during follow-up and treatment.Communications medicine · 2022Article
- Discovery of CASP8 as a potential biomarker for high-risk prostate cancer through a high-multiplex immunoassay.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Genetically predicted circulating protein biomarkers and ovarian cancer risk.Gynecologic oncology · 2021Article
- Article
- Apigenin induces apoptosis and counteracts cisplatin-induced chemoresistance via Mcl-1 in ovarian cancer cells.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2020Article
- Increased Diagnostic Accuracy of Adnexal Tumors with A Combination of Established Algorithms and Biomarkers.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- A multiplex biomarker assay improves the diagnostic performance of HE4 and CA125 in ovarian tumor patients.PloS one · 2020Article
- High throughput proteomics identifies a high-accuracy 11 plasma protein biomarker signature for ovarian cancer.Communications biology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOver 500,000 women worldwide are diagnosed with ovarian or endometrial cancer each year. We have used a two-step strategy to identify plasma proteins that could be used to improve the diagnosis of women with an indication of gynecologic tumor and in population screening.
methodsIn the discovery step we screened 441 proteins in plasma using the proximity extension assay (PEA) and five Olink Multiplex assays (CVD II, CVD III, INF I, ONC II, NEU I) in women with ovarian cancer (n = 106), endometrial cancer (n = 74), benign ovarian tumors (n = 150) and healthy population controls (n = 399). Based on the discovery analyses a set of 27 proteins were selected and two focused multiplex PEA assays were developed. In a replication step the focused assays were used to study an independent set of cases with ovarian cancer (n = 280), endometrial cancer (n = 228), women with benign ovarian tumors (n = 76) and healthy controls (n = 57).
resultsIn the discovery step, 27 proteins that showed an association to cancer status were identified. In the replication analyses, the focused assays distinguished benign tumors from ovarian cancer stage III-IV with a sensitivity of 0.88 and specificity of 0.92 (AUC = 0.92). The assays had a significantly higher AUC for distinguishing benign tumors from late stage ovarian cancer than using CA125 and HE4 (
conclusionThe PEA assays represent useful tools for identification of new biomarkers for gynecologic cancers. The selected protein assays could be used to distinguish benign tumors from ovarian and endometrial cancer in women diagnosed with an unknown suspicious pelvic mass. The panels could also be used in population screening, for identification of women in need of specialized gynecologic transvaginal ultrasound examination.
fundingThe Swedish Cancer Foundation, Vinnova (SWELIFE), The Foundation for Strategic Research (SSF), Assar Gabrielsson Foundation.
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.