ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2024
The role of seven tumor-associated autoantibodies in the diagnosis, staging and treatment guidance of lung cancer.
Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative diagnostic value of a blood-based three-gene DNA methylation assay and a seven-autoantibody panel for differentiating pulmonary nodules.The journal of liquid biopsy · 2026Article
- B cells in cancer: functions, mechanisms and therapeutic advances.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2026Review
- The value of an integrated multi-omics model in the diagnosis of benign and malignant pulmonary nodules.Translational cancer research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study assessed the diagnosis, staging and treatment guidance of lung cancer (LC) based on seven tumor-associated autoantibodies (TAAbs) -p53, PGP9.5, SOX2, GBU4-5, MAGE A1, CAGE, and GAGE7.
methodsELISA was used to determine the TAAb serum levels in 433 patients diagnosed with LC (161 surgical patients) and 76 patients with benign lung disease (16 surgical patients). The statistical characteristic of the TAAbs was compared among patients with different clinicopathological features. Pre- to postoperative changes in TAAb levels were analyzed to determine their value of LC.
resultsAmong all patients, the positive rate of the seven TAAbs was 23.4%, sensitivity was 26.3%, accuracy was 36.3%, specificity was 93.4%, positive predictive value was 95.8%, and negative predictive value was 18.2%; the positive rate for the LC group (26.3%) was significantly higher than that for the benign group (6.6%; P < 0.001). Significant differences in the positive rate of the seven autoantibodies according to age (P < 0.001), smoking history (P = 0.009) and clinical LC stage (P < 0.001) were found. Smoking was positively associated with the positive of TAAbs (Τ = 0.118, P = 0.008). The positive rates of the seven TAAbs for squamous carcinoma (54.5%), other pathological types (44.4%) and poorly differentiated LC (57.1%) were significantly higher than those for the other types. The positive rate of GBU4-5 was highest among all TAAbs, and the SOX2 level in stage III-IV patients was much higher than that in other stages. For patients undergoing surgery, compared with the preoperative levels, the postoperative levels of the 7 markers, particularly p53 (P = 0.027), PGP9.5 (P = 0.007), GAGE7 (P = 0.014), and GBU4-5 (P = 0.002), were significantly different in the malignant group, especially in stage I-II patients, while no clear pre- to postoperative difference was observed in the benign group.
conclusionsWhen the seven TAAbs was positive, it was very helpful for the diagnosis of LC. The 7 TAAbs was valuable for staging and guiding treatment of LC in surgical patients.
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.