Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39309742›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024

Evaluation of urinary C-reactive protein as an early detection biomarker for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Nurshad Ali, Silvana Debernardi, Evelyn Kurotova, Jian Tajbakhsh, Nirdesh K Gupta, Stephen J Pandol, Patrick Wilson, Stephen P Pereira, Bill Greenhalf, Oleg Blyuss and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Challenges of early detection of pancreatic cancer.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2025
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Nurshad AliCentre for Cancer Biomarkers and Biotherapeutics, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Silvana DebernardiCentre for Cancer Biomarkers and Biotherapeutics, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Evelyn KurotovaCentre for Cancer Biomarkers and Biotherapeutics, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Jian Tajbakhsh3rd Street Diagnostics, Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, CA, United States.
Nirdesh K Gupta3rd Street Diagnostics, Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, CA, United States.
Stephen J PandolDepartment of Medicine, Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, CA, United States.
Patrick WilsonBarts Health, Royal London Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Stephen P PereiraInstitute for Liver and Digestive Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Bill GreenhalfDepartment of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Oleg BlyussCentre for Cancer Screening, Prevention and Early Detection, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Tatjana Crnogorac-JurcevicCentre for Cancer Biomarkers and Biotherapeutics, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is one of the leading causes of cancer-related death worldwide. Up to now, no specific screening or diagnostic tests are available for early PDAC detection. As a result, most patients are diagnosed with advanced or metastatic disease, which leads to a poor prognosis. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the diagnostic value of urinary CRP (uCRP) alone and in combination with our previously established urine biomarker panel (REG1B, LYVE1 and TFF1) for early detection of PDAC. A total of 534 urine samples from multiple centres were analysed: 93 from healthy individuals, 265 from patients with benign hepatobiliary diseases and 176 from PDAC patients. The uCRP and the urinary biomarker panel were assessed using commercial ELISA assays, while plasma CA19-9 and blood CRP (bCRP) were measured using Roche Cobas platform. Multiple logistic regression and nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test were used for statistical analysis. An internal validation approach was applied, and the validated AUC estimators were reported to ensure accuracy. A significant difference was observed in the medians of uCRP between healthy and benign controls and PDAC sample groups (p < 0.001). uCRP levels were not dependent on gender and age, as well as cancer stage. When uCRP was combined with the urinary biomarker panel, it achieved AUCs of 0.878 (95% CI: 0.802-0.931), 0.798 (95% CI: 0.738-0.859) and 0.813 (95% CI: 0.758-0.869) in healthy vs PDAC, benign vs PDAC and healthy and benign vs PDAC sample groups, respectively. However, adding plasma CA19-9 to the urinary biomarker panel yielded a better performance, with AUCs of 0.978 (95% CI: 0.959-0.996), 0.911 (95% CI: 0.873-0.949) and 0.919 (95% CI: 0.883-0.955) in the healthy vs PDAC, benign vs PDAC and healthy and benign vs PDAC comparisons, respectively. In conclusion, we show that measuring CRP in urine is a feasible analytical method, and that uCRP could potentially be a promising biomarker in various diseases including other cancer types.

Indexed as

CA19-9C-reactive proteinLYVE1pancreatic cancerREG1BTFF1urine

Identifiers

PMID39309742
PMCPMC11412792

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.