Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39326669›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD2024

Improving Specificity for Ovarian Cancer Screening Using a Novel Extracellular Vesicle-Based Blood Test: Performance in a Training and Verification Cohort.

Emily S Winn-Deen, Laura T Bortolin, Daniel Gusenleitner, Kelly M Biette, Karen Copeland, Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj, Sophia Apostolidou, Anthony D Couvillon, Daniel P Salem, Sanchari Banerjee and 17 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Extracellular Vesicles and the Gartner Hype Cycle.Journal of extracellular biology · 2025
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
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

27 authors.

Emily S Winn-DeenMercy BioAnalytics Inc., Waltham, Massachusetts. Electronic address: emily@mercybio.com.
Laura T BortolinMercy BioAnalytics Inc., Waltham, Massachusetts.
Daniel GusenleitnerMercy BioAnalytics Inc., Waltham, Massachusetts.
Kelly M BietteMercy BioAnalytics Inc., Waltham, Massachusetts.
Karen CopelandBoulder Statistics, Boulder, Colorado.
Aleksandra Gentry-MaharajMRC Clinical Trials Unit, Institute for Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Women's Cancer, Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Sophia ApostolidouMRC Clinical Trials Unit, Institute for Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Anthony D CouvillonMercy BioAnalytics Inc., Waltham, Massachusetts.
Daniel P SalemMercy BioAnalytics Inc., Waltham, Massachusetts.
Sanchari BanerjeeMercy BioAnalytics Inc., Waltham, Massachusetts.
Jonian GroshaMercy BioAnalytics Inc., Waltham, Massachusetts.
Ibukunoluwapo O ZabroskiMercy BioAnalytics Inc., Waltham, Massachusetts.
Christopher R SedlakMercy BioAnalytics Inc., Waltham, Massachusetts.
Delaney M ByrneMercy BioAnalytics Inc., Waltham, Massachusetts.
Bilal F HamzehMercy BioAnalytics Inc., Waltham, Massachusetts.
MacKenzie S KingMercy BioAnalytics Inc., Waltham, Massachusetts.
Lauren T CuocoMercy BioAnalytics Inc., Waltham, Massachusetts.
Peter A DuffMercy BioAnalytics Inc., Waltham, Massachusetts.
Brendan J ManningMercy BioAnalytics Inc., Waltham, Massachusetts.
Troy B HawkinsMercy BioAnalytics Inc., Waltham, Massachusetts.
Dawn MattoonMercy BioAnalytics Inc., Waltham, Massachusetts.
Toumy GuettoucheMercy BioAnalytics Inc., Waltham, Massachusetts.
Steven J SkatesMGH Biostatistics, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Amy JamiesonDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University of British Columbia and BC Cancer, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Jessica N McAlpineDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University of British Columbia and BC Cancer, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
David HuntsmanDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University of British Columbia and BC Cancer, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Department of Pathology, University of British Columbia and BC Cancer, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Usha MenonMRC Clinical Trials Unit, Institute for Clinical Trials and Methodology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

Proteomic, Genomic, and Longitudinal Pathways to Ovarian Cancer Biomarker DiscoveryU01CA152990 · NCI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI BIRRER, MICHAEL, SKATES, STEVEN J · 2010 to 2021
$8.9M
Genome-wide methylation and proteomic analysis of uterine lavage and cervical swab for early detection of ovarian cancerU2CCA271871 · NCI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI Steven J Skates · 2022 to 2026
$4.5M
Medical Research Council G0801228Medical Research Council G9901012NCI NIH HHS U01 CA152990NCI NIH HHS U2C CA271871
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The low incidence of ovarian cancer (OC) dictates that any screening strategy needs to be both highly sensitive and highly specific. This study explored the utility of detecting multiple colocalized proteins or glycosylation epitopes on single tumor-associated extracellular vesicles from blood. The novel Mercy Halo Ovarian Cancer Test (OC Test) uses immunoaffinity capture of tumor-associated extracellular vesicles, followed by proximity-ligation real-time quantitative PCR to detect combinations of up to three biomarkers to maximize specificity, and measures multiple combinations to maximize sensitivity. A high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC) case-control training set of EDTA plasma samples from 397 women was used to lock down the test design, the data interpretation algorithm, and the cutoff between cancer and noncancer. Performance was verified and compared with cancer antigen 125 in an independent blinded case-control set of serum samples from 390 women (132 controls, 66 HGSC, 83 non-HGSC OC, and 109 benign). In the verification study, the OC Test showed a specificity of 97.0% (128/132; 95% CI, 92.4%-99.6%), a HGSC sensitivity of 97.0% (64/66; 95% CI, 87.8%-99.2%), and an area under the curve of 0.97 (95% CI, 0.93-0.99) and detected 73.5% (61/83; 95% CI, 62.7%-82.6%) of the non-HGSC OC cases. This test exhibited fewer false positives in subjects with benign ovarian tumors, nonovarian cancers, and inflammatory conditions when compared with cancer antigen 125. The combined sensitivity and specificity of this new test suggests that it may have potential in OC screening.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorEarly Detection of CancerExtracellular VesiclesOvarian NeoplasmsSensitivity and SpecificityAdultAgedCA-125 AntigenCase-Control StudiesCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedBiomarkers, TumorCA-125 Antigen

Identifiers

PMID39326669
PMCPMC11600309

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.