Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35646113›Full record

ArticleJournal of oncology2022

Combined Efficacy of CXCL5, STC2, and CHI3L1 in the Diagnosis of Colorectal Cancer.

Hui Li, Xiaoping Zhou, Haining Zhang, Jifeng Jiang, Hu Fu, Fang Wang

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hui LiDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Chengdu First People's Hospital, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0099-9785
Xiaoping ZhouDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Chengdu First People's Hospital, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8872-3235
Haining ZhangDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Chengdu First People's Hospital, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3906-4266
Jifeng JiangDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Chengdu First People's Hospital, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1547-7779
Hu FuDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Chengdu First People's Hospital, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5832-2289
Fang WangDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi 710061, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3538-9661
First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To improve the diagnostic capacity of serum biomarkers for colorectal cancer (CRC), we introduced three novel indicators, namely, the C-X-C motif chemokine ligand 5 (CXCL5), stanniocalcin 2 (STC2), and chitinase 3 like 1 (CHI3L1) and assessed their performances in the detection of CRC. Methods: A total of 887 serum samples (153 health, 342 polyps, and 392 CRCs) were collected. Concentrations of CXCL5, STC2, and CHI3L1 were measured by the ELISA. CEA and CA199 were determined by electrochemiluminescence. Binary logistic regression was used to build the combination model. ROC analysis was used to evaluate the performance of biomarkers alone or in combination. Results: Model_2 that based on CXCL5, STC2, and CHI3L1 was the best approach in discriminating CRC from non-CRC controls (AUC, 0.943 (0.922-0.960); sensitivity, 0.848; specificity, 0.917; and accuracy, 0.887 in the training cohort and 0.959 (95% CI 0.927-0.980), 0.878, 0.917, and 0.900 in the testing cohort, respectively). In the detection of early CRC, Model_2 revealed AUC, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 0.925 (0.897-0.947), 0.793, 0.917, and 0.886 in the training cohort and those of 0.926 (0.979-0.959), 0.786, 0.931, and 0.898 in the testing cohort. Furthermore, Model_2 exhibited an excellent diagnostic performance in CEA-negative cases (0.938 (0.913-0.957), 0.826, 0.917, and 0.888 in the training cohort and 0.961 (0.925-0.983), 0.887, 0.931, and 0.918 in the testing cohort). As used alone, STC2 achieved the capacities that is second only to that of Model_2 (0.866 (0.837-0.892), 0.859, 0.842, and 0.853 in the training cohort and 0.887 (0.842-0.923), 0.922, 0.799, and 0.853 in the testing cohort). STC2 alone also yielded acceptable results for early CRC detection (0.815 (0.776-0.849), 0.767, 0.849, and 0.829 in the training cohort and 0.870 (0.812-0.914), 0.952, 0.799, and 0.833 in the testing cohort). Moreover, STC2 maintained diagnostic accuracy for CRC patients with negative CEA (0.874 (0.842-0.901), 0.862, 0.849, and 0.853 in the training cohort and 0.898 (0.848-0.936), 0.930, 0.801, and 0.842 in the testing cohort). In comparison, the performances of the CEA and CA199 based Model_1 were far from satisfactory, especially in early cases (0.767 (0.726-0.805), 0.491, 0.863, and 0.771 in the training cohort and 0.817 (0.754-0.870), 0.476, 0.889, and 0.796 in the testing cohort). Conclusions: STC2 was a promising serum biomarker for CRC diagnosis either used alone or in combination with CXCL5 and CHI3L1.

Identifiers

PMID35646113
PMCPMC9142324
OpenAlexW4285740990

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.