SynthesisClinical and experimental immunology2022
Antibodies as biomarkers for cancer risk: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Clinical and experimental immunology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 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
24 citing papers in PubMed.
- Burden and Correlates of Multiple Chronic Infections and Their Associations With Cancer Incidence in Chinese Adults: A Large Case-Cohort Study.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Defining the rules of engagement: B cells, antibodies and cancer control.Cellular & molecular immunology · 2026Review
- Humoral contributions to checkpoint blockade therapy.Journal for immunotherapy of cancer · 2026Article
- Validation of a blood-based autoantibody test to assess lung cancer risk in 4-30 mm pulmonary nodules: a retrospective pooled analysis of four cohort studies.Future oncology (London, England) · 2026Article
- Rethinking biomarker strategy in gastric cancer immunotherapy: from tumor to host.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Association of Neuronal Autoantibodies with Overall Survival in Patients with Gastric Cancer.Cancer research communications · 2025Article
- Immunodiagnostic plasma amino acid residue biomarkers detect cancer early and predict treatment response.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Pan-serological antibodies and liver cancer risk: a nested case-control analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Skeletal muscle index combined with IgM predicts prognosis in gastric cancer patients who underwent surgery.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Multiplexed Biomarker Detection Using DNA Payloads: Design, Assembly, and Analysis.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025Article
- ESCCPred: a machine learning model for diagnostic prediction of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma using autoantibody profiles.British journal of cancer · 2024Article
- CPA4 as a biomarker promotes the proliferation, migration and metastasis of clear cell renal cell carcinoma cells.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2024Article
- Virus-like particle vaccine displaying an external, membrane adjacent MUC16 epitope elicits ovarian cancer-reactive antibodies.Journal of ovarian research · 2024Article
- Pan-viral serology uncovers distinct virome patterns as risk predictors of hepatocellular carcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.Cell reports. Medicine · 2023Article
- A Distinct Anti-EBV DNase Profile in Patients with Undifferentiated Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Compared to Classical Antigens.Viruses · 2023Article
- Redefining serological diagnostics with immunoaffinity proteomics.Clinical proteomics · 2023Review
- Article
- B cell profiles, antibody repertoire and reactivity reveal dysregulated responses with autoimmune features in melanoma.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Atrophic Gastritis and Autoimmunity: Results from a Prospective, Multicenter Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Microbial infections as potential risk factors for lung cancer: Investigating the role of human papillomavirus and chlamydia pneumoniae.AIMS public health · 2023Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Increasing evidence has linked the humoral immune response with the development of various cancers. Therefore, there is growing interest in investigating the predictive value of antibodies to assess overall and tissue site-specific cancer risk. Given the large amount of antibody types and the broad scope of the search (i.e. cancer risk), the primary aim of this systematic review was to present an overview of the most researched antibodies (i.e. immunoglobulin (Ig) isotypes (IgG, IgM, IgA, and IgE), tumour and self-antigen-reactive antibodies, infection-related antibodies) in relation to overall and site-specific cancer risk. We identified various antibody types that have been associated with the risk of cancer. While no significant associations were found for IgM serum levels, studies found an inconsistent association among IgE, IgA, and IgG serum levels in relation to cancer risk. When evaluating antibodies against infectious agents, most studies reported a positive link with specific cancers known to be associated with the specific agent recognized by serum antibodies (i.e. helicobacter pylori and gastric cancer, hepatitis B virus and hepatocellular carcinoma, and human papillomavirus and cervical cancer). Several reports identified autoantibodies, as single biomarkers (e.g. anti-p53, anti-MUC1, and anti-CA125) but especially in panels of multiple autoantibodies, to have potential as diagnostic biomarkers for specific cancer types. Overall, there is emerging evidence associating certain antibodies to cancer risk, especially immunoglobulin isotypes, tumour-associated antigen-specific, and self-reactive antibodies. Further experimental studies are necessary to assess the efficacy of specific antibodies as markers for the early diagnosis of cancer.
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.