Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31857725›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2020

Development of PancRISK, a urine biomarker-based risk score for stratified screening of pancreatic cancer patients.

Oleg Blyuss, Alexey Zaikin, Valeriia Cherepanova, Daniel Munblit, Elena M Kiseleva, Olga M Prytomanova, Stephen W Duffy, Tatjana Crnogorac-Jurcevic

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04449406 (Early Detection of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma), which is not on this map. Cited by 33 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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.

NCT04449406 active not recruitingnot on this map

Early Detection of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma (PDAC) Using a Panel of Biomarkers (UroPanc)

TypeobservationalSponsorQueen Mary University of LondonRan2020 to 2026Enrolled3,500ConditionsPancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Diagnostic Risk Prediction Models for Upper Gastrointestinal Cancers: 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
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Oleg BlyussCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK. o.blyuss@qmul.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0194-6389
Alexey ZaikinDepartment of Paediatrics and Paediatric Infectious Diseases, Institute of Child Health, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia.
Valeriia CherepanovaDepartment of Mathematics and Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.
Daniel MunblitDepartment of Paediatrics and Paediatric Infectious Diseases, Institute of Child Health, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia.
Elena M KiselevaOleh Honchar Dnipro National University, Dnipro, Ukraine.
Olga M PrytomanovaOleh Honchar Dnipro National University, Dnipro, Ukraine.
Stephen W DuffyCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Tatjana Crnogorac-JurcevicCentre for Molecular Oncology, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Oles Honchar Dnipro National University · UAQueen Mary University of London · GBSechenov University · RUUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Hertfordshire · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/R02524X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAn accurate and simple risk prediction model that would facilitate earlier detection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is not available at present. In this study, we compare different algorithms of risk prediction in order to select the best one for constructing a biomarker-based risk score, PancRISK.

methodsThree hundred and seventy-nine patients with available measurements of three urine biomarkers, (LYVE1, REG1B and TFF1) using retrospectively collected samples, as well as creatinine and age, were randomly split into training and validation sets, following stratification into cases (PDAC) and controls (healthy patients). Several machine learning algorithms were used, and their performance characteristics were compared. The latter included AUC (area under ROC curve) and sensitivity at clinically relevant specificity.

resultsNone of the algorithms significantly outperformed all others. A logistic regression model, the easiest to interpret, was incorporated into a PancRISK score and subsequently evaluated on the whole data set. The PancRISK performance could be even further improved when CA19-9, commonly used PDAC biomarker, is added to the model.

conclusionPancRISK score enables easy interpretation of the biomarker panel data and is currently being tested to confirm that it can be used for stratification of patients at risk of developing pancreatic cancer completely non-invasively, using urine samples.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalAgedAlgorithmsBiomarkers, TumorCarcinoma, Pancreatic DuctalCase-Control StudiesCreatinineEarly Detection of CancerHumansLithostathineLogistic ModelsMachine LearningMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPancreatic NeoplasmsPredictive Value of TestsBiomarkers, TumorCreatinineLithostathineLYVE1 protein, humanREG1B protein, humanTFF1 protein, humanTrefoil Factor-1Vesicular Transport Proteins

Identifiers

PMID31857725
PMCPMC7054390
OpenAlexW2995984299

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.