ArticleBJC reports2024
Retrospective evaluation of plasma protein tumour markers for early lung cancer detection.
Article in BJC reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Alterations in NK cell subsets and the regulatory role of JAB1 in nasopharyngeal carcinoma with implications for tumor immunity and biomarker development.British journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Clinical significance of serum levels of 14-3-3β protein in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.Scientific reports · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBlood-based biomarkers might help lung cancer diagnosis. A panel of serum tumour markers (TM) has been validated for hospital referrals due to clinical suspicion of lung cancer. We have compared plasma from a cohort enriched for early-stage lung cancer, including controls from a healthy population cohort.
methodsTM assays for CEA, CYFRA 21-1, CA15.3, ProGRP and SCC were run on a Roche Elecsys 2010 Immunoassay Analyser for a retrospective, nested case-control cohort from the Liverpool Lung Project. The primary endpoints were the sensitivity and specificity of a pre-defined TM panel using published thresholds.
resultsExcept for ProGRP, TM levels were significantly higher in cases and ROC AUC values demonstrated significant discriminant power. Accuracy and levels were higher for late-stage cancers, except for ProGRP which was highest in stage 1 cancers. Although providing similar sensitivity (82.4% vs 88.5%), TMs performed worse for specificity (39.3% vs 82%) and overall (Youden's Index 0.22 vs 0.77) and this was not improved by threshold optimisation or binary logistic regression.
conclusionsAlthough the TMs were associated with lung cancer status and discriminatory with a high sensitivity when combined, performance was compromised in early-stage disease, which casts some doubt on utility in the screening setting.
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.