ArticleFrontiers in immunology2025
Identification and validation of a novel autoantibody biomarker panel for differential diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Humoral immunity in pancreatic cancer: B-cell heterogeneity, regulatory networks, and therapeutic opportunities.Cancer metastasis reviews · 2026Review
- Peptide Arrays as Tools for Unraveling Tumor Microenvironments and Drug Discovery in Oncology.Cells · 2026Review
- Serological Proteome Analysis for Antigen Identification.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026Article
- Tumor antigen-associated autoantibodies: generation mechanisms, roles in tumorigenesis and progression, and clinical application prospects.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Proteomic Profiling of EUS-FNA Samples Differentiates Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma from Mass-Forming Chronic Pancreatitis.Biomedicines · 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: New biomarkers are urgently needed to detect pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) at an earlier stage for individualized treatment strategies and to improve outcomes. Autoantibodies (AAbs) in principle make attractive biomarkers as they arise early in disease, report on disease-associated perturbations in cellular proteomes, and are static in response to other common stimuli, yet are measurable in the periphery, potentially well in advance of the onset of clinical symptoms. Methods: Here, we used high-throughput, custom cancer antigen microarrays to identify a clinically relevant autoantibody biomarker combination able to differentially detect PDAC. Specifically, we quantified the serological AAb profiles of 94 PDAC, chronic pancreatitis (CP), other pancreatic- (PC) and prostate cancers (PRC), non-ulcer dyspepsia patients (DYS), and healthy controls (HC). Results: Combinatorial ROC curve analysis on the training cohort data from the cancer antigen microarrays identified the most effective biomarker combination as CEACAM1-DPPA2-DPPA3-MAGEA4-SRC-TPBG-XAGE3 with an AUC = 85·0% (SE = 0·828, SP = 0·684). Additionally, differential expression analysis on the samples run on the iOme™ array identified 4 biomarkers (ALX1-GPA33-LIP1-SUB1) upregulated in PDAC against diseased and healthy controls. Identified AAbs were validated in silico using public immunohistochemistry datasets and experimentally using a custom PDAC protein microarray comprising the 11 optimal AAb biomarker panel. The clinical utility of the biomarker panel was tested in an independent cohort comprising 223 PDAC, PC, PRC, colorectal cancer (CRC), and HC samples. Combinatorial ROC curve analysis on the validation data identified the most effective biomarker combination to be CEACAM1-DPPA2-DPPA3-MAGEA4-SRC-TPBG-XAGE3 with an AUC = 85·0% (SE = 0·828, SP = 0·684). Subsequently, the specificity of the 11-biomarker panel was validated against other cancers (PDAC vs PC: AUC = 70·3%; PDAC vs CRC: AUC = 84·3%; PDAC vs PRC: AUC = 80·2%) and healthy controls (PDAC vs HC: AUC = 80·9%), confirming that this novel AAb biomarker panel is able to selectively detect PDAC amongst other confounding diseases. Conclusion: This AAb panel may therefore have the potential to form the basis of a novel diagnostic test for PDAC.
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.