ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Method Comparison and Clinical Performance of Breast Cancer Tumor Markers on Novel Multiplex Immunoassay and Automatized LOCI Technology Platforms.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 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.
- A Rational Optimization Approach for the Development of a Multiplexed Lateral Flow Immunoassay: Detection of Nonepithelial Ovarian Cancer Markers in Human Serum.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- A novel four-serum marker model for early detection and therapeutic monitoring of breast cancer.Scientific reports · 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
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tumor marker determinations are valuable tools for the guidance of breast cancer patients during the course of disease. They are assessed on diverse analytical platforms that may be associated with differences according to the methods applied and the clinical performance. To investigate the method dependency and clinical significance of breast cancer protein tumor markers, CEA, CA 15-3, CA 125, CA 19-9 and AFP were measured in a total of 154 biobanked samples from 77 patients with breast cancer, 10 with DCIS, 31 with benign breast diseases and 36 healthy controls using a Millipore multiplex biomarker panel (MP) and an automized version of the routinely used Vista LOCI technology. The markers were compared between methods and investigated for diagnostic performance. CEA, CA 15-3 and AFP showed good correlations between both platforms with correlation coefficients of R = 0.85, 0.85 and 0.92, respectively, in all samples, but similarly also in the various subgroups. CA 125 and CA 19-9 showed only moderate correlations (R = 0.71 and 0.56, respectively). Absolute values were significantly higher for CEA, CA 15-3, CA 125 and AFP in the Vista LOCI as compared with the MP method and vice versa for CA 19-9. The diagnostic performance for discrimination of breast cancer from healthy controls was similar for both methods with AUCs in ROC curves for CEA (MP 0.81, 95% CI 0.72-0.91; LOCI 0.81; 95% CI 0.72-0.91) and CA-15-3 (MP 0.75, 95% CI 0.65-0.86; LOCI 0.67, 95% CI 0.54-0.79). Similar results were obtained for the comparison of breast cancer with benign breast diseases regarding CEA (AUC MP 0.62, 95% CI 0.51-0.73; LOCI 0.64, 95% CI 0.53-0.74) and CA-15-3 (MP 0.70, 95% CI 0.6-0.81; LOCI 0.66, 95% CI 0.54-0.77). Both platforms show moderate to good method comparability for tumor markers with similar clinical performance. However, absolute levels in individual patients should be interpreted with care.
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.