ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2022
Potential of blood-based biomarker approaches in endometrium and breast cancer: a case-control comparison study.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Circulating potential biomarkers in polycystic ovary syndrome and gynecologic cancers: Diagnostic insights from a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of ovarian research · 2025Pooled it
- Development and validation of a blood biomarker risk prediction model for postmenopausal endometrioid endometrial cancer.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Article
- Research Progress of DNA Methylation Markers for Endometrial Carcinoma Diagnosis.Journal of Cancer · 2025Review
- Unveiling DNA methylation: early diagnosis, risk assessment, and therapy for endometrial cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
- Endometrial cancer diagnostic and prognostic algorithms based on proteomics, metabolomics, and clinical data: a systematic review.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeEndometrial carcinoma is the second most common gynecological malignancy. Until today lacking a screening tool. A blood-based biomarker could help address this need.
methodsThe expression levels of 30 acylcarnitines, 18 amino acids, 6 miRNAs, and 7 DNA methylation sites were measured in blood samples from 331 women (20 EC, 14 benign uterine lesions (benign), 140 breast cancers (BC), 157 controls). Areas under the ROC curves (AUC), sensitivity (sens.) and specificity (spec.) were computed to identify the variables best distinguishing.
resultsThe best top ten markers for the four comparisons (cancer vs. cancer-free; EC vs. BC, EC vs. controls; EC vs. benign), were identified via AUC. Malonylcarnitine distinguished best patients with EC from controls (AUC: 0.827, sens. 80%, spec. 73.1%) or BC (AUC: 0.819, sens. 84.3%, spec. 80%) being most notable. Tryptophan best differentiated benign from EC (AUC: 0.846, sens. 70%, spec. 92.9%).
conclusionsThe levels of the analyzed blood markers yielded promising results in the detection of EC and warrant further evaluation.
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.