ArticleEBioMedicine2023
Evaluation of pre-diagnostic blood protein measurements for predicting survival after lung cancer diagnosis.
Article in EBioMedicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identification of PANoptosis-related genes in lung cancer and investigation of their role mechanisms in the immune microenvironment.Discover oncology · 2026Article
- Prognostic value of circulating proteins at diagnosis among patients with lung cancer: a comprehensive analysis by smoking status.Translational lung cancer research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors at 12 institutions in 9 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate whether circulating proteins are associated with survival after lung cancer diagnosis, and whether they can improve prediction of prognosis.
methodsWe measured up to 1159 proteins in blood samples from 708 participants in 6 cohorts. Samples were collected within 3 years prior to lung cancer diagnosis. We used Cox proportional hazards models to identify proteins associated with overall mortality after lung cancer diagnosis. To evaluate model performance, we used a round-robin approach in which models were fit in 5 cohorts and evaluated in the 6th cohort. Specifically, we fit a model including 5 proteins and clinical parameters and compared its performance with clinical parameters only.
findingsThere were 86 proteins nominally associated with mortality (p < 0.05), but only CDCP1 remained statistically significant after accounting for multiple testing (hazard ratio per standard deviation: 1.19, 95% CI: 1.10-1.30, unadjusted p = 0.00004). The external C-index for the protein-based model was 0.63 (95% CI: 0.61-0.66), compared with 0.62 (95% CI: 0.59-0.64) for the model with clinical parameters only. Inclusion of proteins did not provide a statistically significant improvement in discrimination (C-index difference: 0.015, 95% CI: -0.003 to 0.035).
interpretationBlood proteins measured within 3 years prior to lung cancer diagnosis were not strongly associated with lung cancer survival, nor did they importantly improve prediction of prognosis beyond clinical information.
fundingNo explicit funding for this study. Authors and data collection supported by the US National Cancer Institute (U19CA203654), INCA (France, 2019-1-TABAC-01), Cancer Research Foundation of Northern Sweden (AMP19-962), and Swedish Department of Health Ministry.
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.