Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36807337›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2023

Quantitative SWATH-based proteomic profiling of urine for the identification of endometrial cancer biomarkers in symptomatic women.

Kelechi Njoku, Andrew Pierce, Bethany Geary, Amy E Campbell, Janet Kelsall, Rachel Reed, Alexander Armit, Rachel Da Sylva, Liqun Zhang, Heather Agnew and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

14 authors.

Kelechi NjokuDivision of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, 5th Floor Research, St Mary's Hospital, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9WL, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6528-3476
Andrew PierceDivision of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, 5th Floor Research, St Mary's Hospital, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9WL, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5995-2469
Bethany GearyDivision of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, 5th Floor Research, St Mary's Hospital, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9WL, UK.
Amy E CampbellDivision of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, 5th Floor Research, St Mary's Hospital, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9WL, UK.
Janet KelsallStoller Biomarker Discovery Centre, Institute of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Rachel ReedStoller Biomarker Discovery Centre, Institute of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Alexander ArmitStoller Biomarker Discovery Centre, Institute of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Rachel Da SylvaStoller Biomarker Discovery Centre, Institute of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Liqun ZhangDivision of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, 5th Floor Research, St Mary's Hospital, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9WL, UK.
Heather AgnewDivision of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, 5th Floor Research, St Mary's Hospital, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9WL, UK.
Ivona Baricevic-JonesStoller Biomarker Discovery Centre, Institute of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Davide ChiasseriniStoller Biomarker Discovery Centre, Institute of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1169-3258
Anthony D WhettonSchool of Veterinary Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, GU2 7XH, UK. a.whetton@surrey.ac.uk.
Emma J CrosbieDivision of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, 5th Floor Research, St Mary's Hospital, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9WL, UK. Emma.Crosbie@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-0284-8630

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/M008959/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA non-invasive endometrial cancer detection tool that can accurately triage symptomatic women for definitive testing would improve patient care. Urine is an attractive biofluid for cancer detection due to its simplicity and ease of collection. The aim of this study was to identify urine-based proteomic signatures that can discriminate endometrial cancer patients from symptomatic controls.

methodsThis was a prospective case-control study of symptomatic post-menopausal women (50 cancers, 54 controls). Voided self-collected urine samples were processed for mass spectrometry and run using sequential window acquisition of all theoretical mass spectra (SWATH-MS). Machine learning techniques were used to identify important discriminatory proteins, which were subsequently combined in multi-marker panels using logistic regression.

resultsThe top discriminatory proteins individually showed moderate accuracy (AUC > 0.70) for endometrial cancer detection. However, algorithms combining the most discriminatory proteins performed well with AUCs > 0.90. The best performing diagnostic model was a 10-marker panel combining SPRR1B, CRNN, CALML3, TXN, FABP5, C1RL, MMP9, ECM1, S100A7 and CFI and predicted endometrial cancer with an AUC of 0.92 (0.96-0.97). Urine-based protein signatures showed good accuracy for the detection of early-stage cancers (AUC 0.92 (0.86-0.9)).

conclusionA patient-friendly, urine-based test could offer a non-invasive endometrial cancer detection tool in symptomatic women. Validation in a larger independent cohort is warranted.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorEndometrial NeoplasmsBiomarkersCase-Control StudiesExtracellular Matrix ProteinsFatty Acid-Binding ProteinsFemaleHumansMass SpectrometryProteomicsBiomarkersBiomarkers, TumorECM1 protein, humanExtracellular Matrix ProteinsFABP5 protein, humanFatty Acid-Binding Proteins

Identifiers

PMID36807337
PMCPMC10133303

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.