ReviewBreast cancer (Dove Medical Press)2021
Challenges in Detection of Serum Oncoprotein: Relevance to Breast Cancer Diagnostics.
Review in Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Functionalizable poly-terthiophene/CuRSC advances · 2024Article
- SERS Analysis Platform Based on Aptamer Recognition-Release Strategy for Efficient and Sensitive Diagnosis of Colorectal Precancerous Lesions.International journal of nanomedicine · 2024Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Breast cancer is a highly prevalent malignancy that shows improved outcomes with earlier diagnosis. Current screening and monitoring methods have improved survival rates, but the limitations of these approaches have led to the investigation of biomarker evaluation to improve early diagnosis and treatment monitoring. The enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) is a specific and robust technique ideally suited for the quantification of protein biomarkers from blood or its constituents. The continued clinical relevancy of this assay format will require overcoming specific technical challenges, including the ultra-sensitive detection of trace biomarkers and the circumventing of potential assay interference due to the expanding use of monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapeutics. Approaches to increasing the sensitivity of ELISA have been numerous and include employing more sensitive substrates, combining ELISA with the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and incorporating nanoparticles as shuttles for detection antibodies and enzymes. These modifications have resulted in substantial boosts in the ability to detect extremely low levels of protein biomarkers, with some systems reliably detecting antigen at sub-femtomolar concentrations. Extensive utilization of mAb therapies in oncology has presented an additional contemporary challenge for ELISA, particularly when both therapeutic and assay antibodies target the same protein antigen. Resolution of issues such as epitope overlap and steric hindrance requires a rational approach to the design of diagnostic antibodies that takes advantage of modern antibody generation pipelines, epitope binning techniques and computational methods to strategically target biomarker epitopes. This review discusses technical strategies in ELISA implemented to date and their feasibility to address current constraints on sensitivity and problems with interference in the clinical setting. The impact of these recent advancements will depend upon their transformation from research laboratory protocols into facile, reliable detection systems that can ideally be replicated in point-of-care devices to maximize utilization and transform both the diagnostic and therapeutic monitoring landscape.
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.