ArticleBMC cancer2022
Diagnostic value of tumor markers in identifying favorable or unfavorable subsets in patients with cancer of unknown primary: a retrospective study.
Article in BMC cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nutritional indices are potentially important prognostic biomarkers before chemotherapy for non-specific subsets of cancer of unknown primary origin.Molecular and clinical oncology · 2026Article
- Cancer of unknown primary and BRAF V600E meeting the BEACON combination: A case report.Molecular and clinical oncology · 2024Article
- New era: prospects for managing cancer of unknown primary.Cancer biology & medicine · 2023Article
- From Biology to Diagnosis and Treatment: The Ariadne's Thread in Cancer of Unknown Primary.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRoutine measurement of tumor markers is not recommended in daily clinical practice for patients with cancer of unknown primary (CUP). We evaluated the diagnostic value of tumor markers in identifying favorable or unfavorable subsets in patients with CUP.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who were diagnosed with CUP between October 2010 and July 2015 at the National Cancer Center Hospital. The tumor markers of the patients were examined, including squamous cell carcinoma antigen, cytokeratin fraction, carcinoembryonic antigen, sialyl Lewis X, neuron-specific enolase, pro-gastrin-releasing peptide, α-fetoprotein, protein induced by vitamin K absence or antagonist II, prostate-specific antigen, soluble interleukin-2 receptor, carbohydrate antigen 19-9, cancer antigen 125, cancer antigen 15-3, NCC-ST-439 (ST439), elastase-1, human chorionic gonadotropin, and sialyl-Tn (STN).
resultsAmong 199 patients with suspected CUP, 90 were diagnosed with confirmed CUP (12 in the favorable subset and 78 in the unfavorable subset). No tumor markers showed 100% sensitivity for unfavorable subsets. ST439 (p = 0.03) and STN (p = 0.049) showed 100% specificity for unfavorable subsets.
conclusionsFor patients with suspected CUP who show elevated ST439 or STN levels, the treatment strategy should be based on the premise that the patient is likely to be placed in the unfavorable subset.
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.