ArticleCancers2019
Evaluation and Validation of Plasma Proteins Using Two Different Protein Detection Methods for Early Detection of Colorectal Cancer.
Article in Cancers, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Fecal DNA methylation markers for detecting stages of colorectal cancer and its precursors: a systematic review.Clinical epigenetics · 2020Pooled it
- Review
- AI-enabled multi-omics integration in colorectal cancer: from molecular stratification to clinical translation.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Review
- Colorectal cancer molecular profiling: Opportunities for early detection.Clinical and translational medicine · 2025Review
- A plasma metabolite-based test to detect minimal residual disease in post-surgery patients with colorectal cancer.iScience · 2025Article
- Blood-based biomarkers in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: developments over the last decade and what holds for the future- a review.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Review
- Biomarker Identification through Proteomics in Colorectal Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Proteomics: Unraveling the Cross Talk Between Innate Immunity and Disease Pathophysiology, Diagnostics, and Treatment Options.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2024Review
- Quantitative Proteomics of Maternal Blood Plasma in Isolated Intrauterine Growth Restriction.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Review
- Liquid Biopsies, Novel Approaches and Future Directions.Cancers · 2023Review
- Advancements in Oncoproteomics Technologies: Treading toward Translation into Clinical Practice.Proteomes · 2023Review
- Multi-Omics Approaches in Colorectal Cancer Screening and Diagnosis, Recent Updates and Future Perspectives.Cancers · 2022Review
- Proteome Multimarker Panel for the Early Detection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Multicenter Derivation, Validation, and Comparison.ACS omega · 2022Article
- Prospective Proteomic Study Identifies Potential Circulating Protein Biomarkers for Colorectal Cancer Risk.Cancers · 2022Article
- Review
- Proteomics technologies for cancer liquid biopsies.Molecular cancer · 2022Review
- Review
- Systems-level biomarkers identification and drug repositioning in colorectal cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivePlasma protein biomarkers could be an efficient alternative for population-based screening for early detection of colorectal cancer (CRC). The objective of this study was to evaluate and validate plasma proteins individually and as a signature for early detection of CRC.
methodsIn a three-stage design, proteins were measured firstly by liquid chromatography/multiple reaction monitoring-mass spectrometry (LC/MRM-MS) and later by proximity extension assay (PEA) in a discovery set consisting of 96 newly diagnosed CRC cases and 94 controls free of neoplasms at screening colonoscopy. Two algorithms (one for each measurement method) were derived by Lasso regression and .632+ bootstrap based on 11 proteins that were included in both the LC/MRM-MS and PEA measurements. Additionally, another algorithm was constructed from the same eleven biomarkers plus amphireglin, the most promising protein marker in the PEA measurements that had not been available from the LC/MRM-MS measurements. Lastly the three prediction signatures were validated with PEA in independent samples of participants of screening colonoscopy (CRC (
resultsThe same four proteins were included in all three prediction signatures; mannan binding lectin serine protease 1, osteopontin, serum paraoxonase lactonase 3 and transferrin receptor protein 1, and the third prediction signature additionally included amphiregulin. In the independent validation set from a true screening setting, the five-marker blood-based signature including AREG presented areas under the curves of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.74-0.89), 0.86 (95% CI, 0.77-0.92) and 0.76 (95% CI, 0.64-0.86) for all, early and late stages CRC, respectively.
conclusionTwo different measurement methods consistently identified four protein markers and an algorithm additionally including amphiregulin, a marker measured by PEA only, showed promising performance for detecting early stage CRC in an independent validation in a true screening setting. These proteins may be potential candidates for blood-based tests for early detection of CRC.
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.