ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal oncology2023
Diagnostic value of circular free DNA for colorectal cancer detection.
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive or noninvasive, sensitive and accurate detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) is urgently needed in clinical practice.
aimTo identify a noninvasive, sensitive and accurate circular free DNA marker detected by digital polymerase chain reaction (dPCR) for the early diagnosis of clinical CRC.
methodsA total of 195 healthy control (HC) individuals and 101 CRC patients (38 in the early CRC group and 63 in the advanced CRC group) were enrolled to establish the diagnostic model. In addition, 100 HC individuals and 62 patients with CRC (30 early CRC and 32 advanced CRC groups) were included separately to validate the model. CAMK1D was dPCR. Binary logistic regression analysis was used to establish a diagnostic model including CAMK1D and CEA.
resultsTo differentiate between the 195 HCs and 101 CRC patients (38 early CRC and 63 advanced CRC patients), the common biomarkers CEA and CAMK1D were used alone or in combination to evaluate their diagnostic value. The area under the curves (AUCs) of CEA and CAMK1D were 0.773 (0.711, 0.834) and 0.935 (0.907, 0.964), respectively. When CEA and CAMK1D were analyzed together, the AUC was 0.964 (0.945, 0.982). In differentiating between the HC and early CRC groups, the AUC was 0.978 (0.960, 0.995), and the sensitivity and specificity were 88.90% and 90.80%, respectively. In differentiating between the HC and advanced CRC groups, the AUC was 0.956 (0.930, 0.981), and the sensitivity and specificity were 81.30% and 95.90%, respectively. After building the diagnostic model containing CEA and CAMK1D, the AUC of the CEA and CAMK1D joint model was 0.906 (0.858, 0.954) for the validation group. In differentiating between the HC and early CRC groups, the AUC was 0.909 (0.844, 0.973), and the sensitivity and specificity were 93.00% and 83.30%, respectively. In differentiating between the HC and advanced CRC groups, the AUC was 0.904 (0.849, 0.959), and the sensitivity and specificity were 93.00% and 75.00%, respectively.
conclusionWe built a diagnostic model including CEA and CAMK1D for differentiating between HC individuals and CRC patients. Compared with the common biomarker CEA alone, the diagnostic model exhibited significant improvement.
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.