ArticleFrontiers in oncology2023
Clinical validation of the novel CLIA-CA-62 assay efficacy for early-stage breast cancer detection.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predictive Role of Pre-Radiotherapy D-Dimer and Inflammatory Markers in Monitoring Outcomes After Treatment in Hormone-Positive Breast Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Review
- Review: Detection of Cancer Biomarkers from a Clinical Perspective.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Development of a Chemiluminescence Immunoassay for the Serological Diagnosis of Sheep and Bovine Brucellosis.Microorganisms · 2025Article
- The Future of Tumor Markers: Advancing Early Malignancy Detection Through Omics Technologies, Continuous Monitoring, and Personalized Reference Intervals.Biomolecules · 2025Review
- Innovative Applications of Nucleic Acid Aptamers in Colorectal Cancer Diagnosis and Therapy: From Selection Optimization to Clinical Translation.International journal of nanomedicine · 2025Review
- Diagnostic significance of the novel biomarker combination for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer detection: results of the blind clinical study.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Without organized screening programs up to 60-70% of breast cancers are diagnosed at advanced stages that have significantly lower five-year survival rate and poorer outcomes, which is a serious global public health problem. The purpose of the blind clinical study was the assessment of the novel Methods: Blind serum samples of 196 BC patients with known TNM staging, 85% with DCIS, Stage I & IIA, and 73 healthy control subjects were analyzed with the CLIA-CA-62 and CA 15-3 ELISA assays. Results were also compared to the pathology findings and to published data from mammography, MRI, ultrasound, and multi-cancer early detection test (MCED). Results: The CLIA-CA-62 overall sensitivity for BC was 92% (100% for DCIS) at 93% specificity and it decreased in invasive stages (Stage I=97%, Stage II=85% and Stage III=83%). For the CA 15-3 assay sensitivity was 27-46% at 80% specificity. Sensitivity for mammography was 63-80% at 60% specificity, depending on the stage and the parenchymal density. Conclusion: These results demonstrate that CLIA-CA-62 immunoassay could prove useful as a supplement to current mammography screening and other imaging methods, thus increasing the diagnostic sensitivity in DCIS and Stage I breast cancer detection.
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.