ArticleTranslational lung cancer research2024
Serum tumor markers and outcomes in lung cancer patients with brain metastases: a retrospective longitudinal cohort study.
Article in Translational lung cancer research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- A nomogram prediction model for brain metastases in patients with lung adenocarcinoma.Oncology letters · 2026Article
- Magnetic resonance imaging characteristics of brain metastases from lung cancer.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Integration of circulating biomarkers and clinical factors: construction and validation of a prediction model for lung cancer metastasis.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2025Article
- Risk factors for bone metastasis in lung cancer and the efficacy of palliative radiotherapy and opioid analgesics in alleviating bone metastasis pain.Oncology letters · 2025Article
- Reirradiation using helical tomotherapy-based hypofractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for 19 brain metastases after the second recurrence of distant brain failure: a case report and literature review.Translational lung cancer research · 2025Article
- Diagnostic value of combined CT artificial intelligence (AI) system and lung cancer biomarkers in pulmonary nodule evaluation.AIMS public health · 2025Article
- Pan-Immune-Inflammation Value as a Prognostic Biomarker for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients Undergoing Hepatectomy.Journal of inflammation research · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Serum tumor markers (STMs) are recommended for cancer diagnosis and surveillance. However, their role in lung cancer with brain metastases (BM) is not yet clear. We aim to analyze the roles of baseline levels of STMs or ongoing STM surveillance on survival. Methods: This retrospective longitudinal cohort study included 1,169 lung cancer patients with BM. The STM data during disease course were collected. Distinct trajectory groups were identified using the latent class growth mixed model (LCGMM). The roles of STMs on survival were further analyzed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazard models. Results: Serum levels of cytokeratin-19 fragment (CYFRA21-1) (P<0.001), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) (P=0.005) and neuron-specific enolase (NSE) (P<0.001) at baseline exhibited significant correlation with overall survival (OS) of patients with BM, serving as independent prognostic factors. Further analysis indicated that baseline CYFRA21-1, CEA, NSE as well as status of key driver genes were independent prognostic factors in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with BM, while for small cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients with BM, baseline NSE and receiving chemotherapy show independent correlations with survival. Furthermore, we delineated the dynamic trajectories of STMs based on changes in disease course. More specifically, compared to those showing a baseline-high trend in CEA levels, the survival of patients with either persistently-rising or consistently normal levels seemed to be more promising. For CYFRA21-1, both early-rising and later-rising trends were observed, indicating a prognosis inferior to that of individuals with normal-level trajectory. Likewise, for NSE, patients with persistently-rising or persistently-descending trends showed no significantly survival difference. However, in comparison with the status of driver genes, receiving radiotherapy and targeted therapy, the dynamic changes in STM levels lacked independent prognostic significance. Further analysis indicated that among BM patients lacking key driver genes, NSE trajectory (P<0.05), CYFRA21-1 trajectory (P<0.05) and receiving chemotherapy (P<0.001) were independent prognostic factors. Conclusions: Baseline levels of serum CYFRA21-1, CEA and NSE, as well as status of key driver genes are recommended for evaluating BM patients' outcome. Dynamic changes of STMs during disease course were not significantly associated with the final outcome of BM 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.