Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36196264›Full record

ArticleCommunications medicine2022

Data-driven analysis of a validated risk score for ovarian cancer identifies clinically distinct patterns during follow-up and treatment.

Stefan Enroth, Emma Ivansson, Julia Hedlund Lindberg, Maria Lycke, Jessica Bergman, Anna Reneland, Karin Stålberg, Karin Sundfeldt, Ulf Gyllensten

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Communications medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06445621 (Early Detection of Relapse in Ovarian Cancer Using Capillary Home-sampling and a Multiplex Protein Biomarker Test - a Pilot Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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.

NCT06445621 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Early Detection of Relapse in Ovarian Cancer Using Capillary Home-sampling and a Multiplex Protein Biomarker Test - a Pilot Study

TypeobservationalSponsorUppsala University HospitalRan2024 to 2026Enrolled125ConditionsOvarian Cancer, Fallopian Tube Cancer, Peritoneal Cancer
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Screening and prevention of ovarian cancer.The Medical journal of Australia · 2024
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Stefan EnrothDepartment of Immunology, Genetics, and Pathology, Biomedical Center, SciLifeLab Uppsala, Uppsala University, SE-75108 Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-5056-9137
Emma IvanssonDepartment of Immunology, Genetics, and Pathology, Biomedical Center, SciLifeLab Uppsala, Uppsala University, SE-75108 Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-4630-1576
Julia Hedlund LindbergDepartment of Immunology, Genetics, and Pathology, Biomedical Center, SciLifeLab Uppsala, Uppsala University, SE-75108 Uppsala, Sweden.
Maria LyckeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at Gothenburg University, SE-416 85 Gothenburg, Sweden.
Jessica BergmanOlink Proteomics AB, Uppsala, Sweden.
Anna RenelandOlink Proteomics AB, Uppsala, Sweden.
Karin Stålberg *Department of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, SE-751 85 Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-5527-8796
Karin Sundfeldt *Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at Gothenburg University, SE-416 85 Gothenburg, Sweden.
Ulf Gyllensten *Department of Immunology, Genetics, and Pathology, Biomedical Center, SciLifeLab Uppsala, Uppsala University, SE-75108 Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-6316-3355
Uppsala University · SEOlink Bioscience (Sweden) · SEUniversity of Gothenburg · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Ovarian cancer is the eighth most common cancer among women and due to late detection prognosis is poor with an overall 5-year survival of 30-50%. Novel biomarkers are needed to reduce diagnostic surgery and enable detection of early-stage cancer by population screening. We have previously developed a risk score based on an 11-biomarker plasma protein assay to distinguish benign tumors (cysts) from malignant ovarian cancer in women with adnexal ovarian mass. Methods: Protein concentrations of 11 proteins were characterized in plasma from 1120 clinical samples with a custom version of the proximity extension assay. The performance of the assay was evaluated in terms of prediction accuracy based on receiver operating characteristics (ROC) and multiple hypothesis adjusted Fisher's Exact tests on achieved sensitivity and specificity. Results: The assay's performance is validated in two independent clinical cohorts with a sensitivity of 0.83/0.91 and specificity of 0.88/0.92. We also show that the risk score follows the clinical development and is reduced upon treatment, and increased with relapse and cancer progression. Data-driven modeling of the risk score patterns during a 2-year follow-up after diagnosis identifies four separate risk score trajectories linked to clinical development and survival. A Cox proportional hazard regression analysis of 5-year survival shows that at time of diagnosis the risk score is the second-strongest predictive variable for survival after tumor stage, whereas MUCIN-16 (CA-125) alone is not significantly predictive. Conclusion: The robust performance of the biomarker assay across clinical cohorts and the correlation with clinical development indicates its usefulness both in the diagnostic work-up of women with adnexal ovarian mass and for predicting their clinical course.

Indexed as

Diagnostic markersOvarian cancerPrognostic markers

Identifiers

PMID36196264
PMCPMC9526736
OpenAlexW4298396180

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.