ArticleBMC cancer2024
Relevance of blood tumor markers in inpatients with significant involuntary weight loss and elevated levels of inflammation biomarkers.
Article in BMC cancer, 2024. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- CA125 as a Potential Biomarker in Non-Malignant Serous Effusions: Diagnostic and Prognostic Considerations.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- A cross-sectional study examining the relationship between the advanced lung cancer inflammation index and prostate cancer.Journal of health, population, and nutrition · 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
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the diagnostic performance of a panel of standard tumor markers (TMs) in patients hospitalized with significant involuntary weight loss (IWL) and elevated levels of inflammation biomarkers, and a combination of the TM panel and the finding of the computed tomography (CT) scan.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective study in the internal medicine department at Amiens-Picardie University Medical Center (Amiens, France) between January 1st, 2015, and November 1st, 2021. The inclusion criteria were age 18 or over, significant IWL (≥ 5 kg over 6 months), elevated inflammation biomarkers (e.g. C-reactive protein), and assay data on two or more standard TMs (carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19 - 9, CA 15 - 3, CA 125, neuron-specific enolase (NSE), alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), calcitonin, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA)). The result of each TM assay was interpreted qualitatively (as positive or negative), according to our central laboratory's usual thresholds.
resultsCancer was diagnosed in 50 (37.0%) of the 135 patients included. Positivity for one or more TMs had a positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.55 [0.43-0.66], and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.84 [0.75-0.93] for cancer diagnosis. When combined with the presence of suspicious CT findings (e.g. a mass, enlarged lymph nodes and/or effusion), positivity for one or more TMs had a PPV of 0.92 [0.08-0.30]. In the absence of suspicious CT findings, a fully negative TM panel had an NPV of 0.96 [0.89-1.00].
conclusionA negative TM panel argues against the presence of a cancer, especially in the absence of suspicious CT findings.
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.