Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36192490›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2022

Multicentric validation of diagnostic tests based on BC-116 and BC-106 urine peptide biomarkers for bladder cancer in two prospective cohorts of patients.

Lourdes Mengual, Maria Frantzi, Marika Mokou, Mercedes Ingelmo-Torres, Michiel Vlaming, Axel S Merseburger, Marie C Roesch, Zoran Culig, Antonio Alcaraz, Antonia Vlahou and 2 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

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

12 authors at 6 institutions in 6 countries.

Lourdes MengualLaboratory and Department of Urology, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7418-9422
Maria FrantziDepartment of Biomarker Research, Mosaiques Diagnostics, Hannover, Germany. frantzi@mosaiques-diagnostics.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0415-0316
Marika MokouDepartment of Biomarker Research, Mosaiques Diagnostics, Hannover, Germany.
Mercedes Ingelmo-TorresLaboratory and Department of Urology, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain.
Michiel VlamingDepartment of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Axel S MerseburgerUniversity Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Department of Urology, Lübeck, Germany.
Marie C RoeschUniversity Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Department of Urology, Lübeck, Germany.
Zoran CuligExperimental Urology, Department of Urology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Antonio AlcarazLaboratory and Department of Urology, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain.
Antonia VlahouSystems Biology Center, Biomedical Research Foundation, Academy of Athens, Athens, Greece.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3284-5713
Harald MischakDepartment of Biomarker Research, Mosaiques Diagnostics, Hannover, Germany.
Antoine G Van der HeijdenDepartment of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Hospital Clínic de Barcelona · ESMosaiques Diagnostics and Therapeutics (Germany) · DERadboud University Nijmegen · NLUniversity Hospital Schleswig-Holstein · DEAcademy of Athens · GRInnsbruck Medical University · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNon-invasive urine-based biomarkers can potentially improve current diagnostic and monitoring protocols for bladder cancer (BC). Here we assess the performance of earlier published biomarker panels for BC detection (BC-116) and monitoring of recurrence (BC-106) in combination with cytology, in two prospectively collected patient cohorts.

methodsOf the 602 patients screened for BC, 551 were found eligible. For the primary setting, 73 patients diagnosed with primary BC (n = 27) and benign urological disorders, including patients with macroscopic haematuria, cystitis and/or nephrolithiasis (n = 46) were included. In total, 478 patients under surveillance were additionally considered (83 BC recurrences; 395 negative for recurrence). Urine samples were analysed with capillary electrophoresis-mass spectrometry. The biomarker score was estimated via support vector machine-based software.

resultsValidation of BC-116 biomarker panel resulted in 89% sensitivity and 67% specificity (AUC

conclusionsBC-116 biomarker panel is a useful test for detecting primary BC. BC-106 classifier integrated with cytology showing >95% negative predictive value, might be useful for decreasing the number of cystoscopies during surveillance.

Indexed as

Urinary Bladder NeoplasmsBiomarkers, TumorDiagnostic Tests, RoutineHumansNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPeptidesProspective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityBiomarkers, TumorPeptides

Identifiers

PMID36192490
PMCPMC9681771
OpenAlexW4300089532

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.