Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33907946›Full record

SynthesisAdvances in therapy2021

Identifying Novel Biomarkers Ready for Evaluation in Low-Prevalence Populations for the Early Detection of Lower Gastrointestinal Cancers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Paige Druce, Natalia Calanzani, Claudia Snudden, Kristi Milley, Rachel Boscott, Dawnya Behiyat, Javiera Martinez-Gutierrez, Smiji Saji, Jasmeen Oberoi, Garth Funston and 3 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Advances in therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

13 authors.

Paige DruceCentre for Cancer Research and Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. paige.druce@unimelb.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4231-8100
Natalia CalanzaniDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Claudia SnuddenDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Kristi MilleyCentre for Cancer Research and Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Rachel BoscottDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Dawnya BehiyatDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Javiera Martinez-GutierrezDepartment of Family Medicine, School of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Smiji SajiDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Jasmeen OberoiCentre for Cancer Research and Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Garth FunstonDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Mike MessengerLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Fiona M WalterCentre for Cancer Research and Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Jon EmeryCentre for Cancer Research and Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Funding

Cancer Research UK C8640/A23385
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionLower gastrointestinal (GI) cancers are a major cause of cancer deaths worldwide. Prognosis improves with earlier diagnosis, and non-invasive biomarkers have the potential to aid with early detection. Substantial investment has been made into the development of biomarkers; however, studies are often carried out in specialist settings and few have been evaluated for low-prevalence populations.

methodsWe aimed to identify novel biomarkers for the detection of lower GI cancers that have the potential to be evaluated for use in primary care. MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare and Web of Science were systematically searched for studies published in English from January 2000 to October 2019. Reference lists of included studies were also assessed. Studies had to report on measures of diagnostic performance for biomarkers (single or in panels) used to detect colorectal or anal cancers. We included all designs and excluded studies with fewer than 50 cases/controls. Data were extracted from published studies on types of biomarkers, populations and outcomes. Narrative synthesis was used, and measures of specificity and sensitivity were meta-analysed where possible.

resultsWe identified 142 studies reporting on biomarkers for lower GI cancers, for 24,844 cases and 45,374 controls. A total of 378 unique biomarkers were identified. Heterogeneity of study design, population type and sample source precluded meta-analysis for all markers except methylated septin 9 (mSEPT9) and pyruvate kinase type tumour M2 (TuM2-PK). The estimated sensitivity and specificity of mSEPT9 was 80.6% (95% CI 76.6-84.0%) and 88.0% (95% CI 79.1-93.4%) respectively; TuM2-PK had an estimated sensitivity of 81.6% (95% CI 75.2-86.6%) and specificity of 80.1% (95% CI 76.7-83.0%).

conclusionTwo novel biomarkers (mSEPT9 and TuM2-PK) were identified from the literature with potential for use in lower-prevalence populations. Further research is needed to validate these biomarkers in primary care for screening and assessment of symptomatic patients.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerGastrointestinal NeoplasmsBiomarkersHumansPrevalenceSensitivity and SpecificityBiomarkersBiomarkersClinical practiceColorectal cancerEarly detectionLower gastrointestinal cancersPrimary care

Identifiers

PMID33907946
PMCPMC8078393

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.