ArticleOncology letters2024
Clinical application of serum CST4 combined with tumor markers in the diagnosis of digestive system malignant tumors.
Article in Oncology letters, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Systemic serological signatures and novel biomarker CST4 link CagA-positiveFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Article
- The value of circulating methylated septin 9 in the diagnosis and prognostic assessment of gastric cancer.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- The diagnostic value of serum cysteine protease inhibitor (CST4) in colorectal cancer: a preliminary study.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Advances in carcinoembryonic antigen detection: a review of clinical applications and standardization.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2025Review
- COL1A1, COL1A2, CHN1, and FN1 Promote Tumorogenesis and Act as Markers of Diagnosis and Survival in Gastric Cancer Patients.Current pharmaceutical biotechnology · 2025Article
- Serum Cystatin S (CST4): A Novel Prognostic Marker for Gastric Cancer.Clinical Medicine Insights. Oncology · 2025Article
- Integrating Salivary Biomarkers CST4 andClinical Medicine Insights. Oncology · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to evaluate the diagnostic value of plasma human cystatin-S (CST4) in patients with digestive system malignant tumors. CST4 and tumor markers, such as α-fetoprotein (AFP), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen (CA)199, CA125, CA153 and CA724, were detected in blood samples from 100 patients with a digestive system malignant tumor and 100 patients with benign digestive system diseases. The tumor markers AFP, CEA, CA199, CA125, CA153 and CA724 were detected using an electrochemiluminescence immunoassay, and CST4 levels were detected using a human CST4 ELISA kit. The results demonstrated that the sensitivities of AFP and CA153 (both 5.00%) were significantly lower than that of CST4 (38.00%) in the diagnosis of digestive system malignancy (P<0.001), and CA724 (18.00%) was also less sensitive than CST4 (P<0.05). The sensitivities of CA199 (26.00%), CEA (31.00%) and CA125 (25.00%) were similar to that of CST4 (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the CEA, CA125, CA724 and CST4 specificities (P>0.05), which were 91.00, 95.00, 94.00 and 83.00%, respectively. The specificities of AFP (99.00%), CA199 (98.00%) and CA153 (100.00%) were significantly higher than that of CST4 (P<0.01). By constructing a receiver operating characteristic curve and comparing the area under the curve as well as sensitivity, the findings of the present study demonstrated that combining CST4 with AFP, CEA, CA199, CA125, CA153 and CA724 can significantly enhance the diagnostic sensitivity for malignancies of the digestive system. However, the introduction of CST4 into the traditional diagnostic groups (CEA + AFP, CA199 + CA125 + CA153 + CA724 and AFP + CEA + CA199 + CA125 + CA153 + CA724) resulted in an increased sensitivity and loss of specificity, thereby not offering significant advantages in terms of comprehensive diagnostic efficiency compared with the traditional diagnostic groups. In conclusion, CST4 detection may be a promising diagnostic tool. Nonetheless, the potential false positive results in tumor diagnosis should be taken into consideration when developing new diagnostic groups involving CST4.
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.