ArticleCancers2022
Prospective Proteomic Study Identifies Potential Circulating Protein Biomarkers for Colorectal Cancer Risk.
Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identification of novel protein biomarkers and drug targets for colorectal cancer by integrating human plasma proteome with genome.Genome medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Colorectal cancer molecular profiling: Opportunities for early detection.Clinical and translational medicine · 2025Review
- The Future of Tumor Markers: Advancing Early Malignancy Detection Through Omics Technologies, Continuous Monitoring, and Personalized Reference Intervals.Biomolecules · 2025Review
- Olink Profiling of Intestinal Tissue Identifies Novel Biomarkers For Colorectal Cancer.Journal of proteome research · 2025Article
- Plasma proteomic and polygenic profiling improve risk stratification and personalized screening for colorectal cancer.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Identifying proteomic risk factors for cancer using prospective and exome analyses of 1463 circulating proteins and risk of 19 cancers in the UK Biobank.Nature communications · 2024Article
- The impact of circulating protein levels identified by affinity proteomics on short-term, overall breast cancer risk.British journal of cancer · 2024Article
- Biomarker Identification through Proteomics in Colorectal Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Plasma protein changes reflect colorectal cancer development and associated inflammation.Frontiers in oncology · 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
9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundProteomics-based technologies are emerging tools used for cancer biomarker discovery. Limited prospective studies have been conducted to evaluate the role of circulating proteins in colorectal cancer (CRC) development.
methodsA two-stage case-control proteomics study nested in the Shanghai Women's Health Study was conducted. A total of 1104 circulating proteins were measured in the discovery phase, consisting of 100 incident CRC cases and 100 individually matched controls. An additional 60 case-control pairs were selected for validation. Protein profiling at both stages was completed using the Olink platforms. Conditional logistic regression was used to evaluate the associations between circulating proteins and CRC risk. The elastic net method was employed to develop a protein score for CRC risk.
resultsIn the discovery set, 27 proteins showed a nominally significant association with CRC risk, among which 22 were positively and 5 were inversely associated. Six of the 27 protein markers were significantly associated with CRC risk in the validation set. In the analysis of pooled discovery and validation sets, odds ratios (ORs) per standard deviation (SD) increase in levels of these proteins were 1.54 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.15-2.06) for CD79B; 1.71 (95% CI: 1.24-2.34) for DDR1; 2.04 (95% CI: 1.39-3.01) for EFNA4; 1.54 (95% CI: 1.16-2.02) for FLRT2; 2.09 (95% CI: 1.47-2.98) for LTA4H and 1.88 (95% CI: 1.35-2.62) for NCR1. Sensitivity analyses showed consistent associations for all proteins with the exclusion of cases diagnosed within the first two years after the cohort enrollment, except for CD79B. Furthermore, a five-protein score was developed based on the six proteins identified and showed significant associations with CRC risk in both discovery and validation sets (Discovery: OR
conclusionsA panel of five protein markers was identified as potential biomarkers for CRC risk. Our findings provide novel insights into the etiology of CRC and may facilitate the risk assessment of the malignancy.
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.