ArticleThe journal of liquid biopsy2024
Development and validation of a novel combinational index of liquid biopsy biomarker for longitudinal lung cancer patient management.
Article in The journal of liquid biopsy, 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.
- Article
- The growing field of liquid biopsy and its Snowball effect on reshaping cancer management.The journal of liquid biopsy · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Many cancer biomarkers such as the circulating tumor cells/microemboli (CTCs/CTM) have been reported significant associations with clinical outcomes. However, different biomarkers have different sensitivities and specificities for cancer types and cohort patients, and synergistic effects between certain biomarkers have also been observed, leading to the inaccurate, fluctuating, and even controversial results when multiple biomarkers are analyzed together. In this paper, a novel combinational index, P-score, was developed for monitoring and predicting the disease condition of lung cancer patients during follow-up visits. Materials and methods: There were totally 13 return patients with 54 blood samples involved in this study to examine the number of CTC and CTM. Information from one group of 7 patients including 27 blood samples with published clinical data was employed to develop while those from another group of 4 patients containing 14 blood samples with unpublished clinical data were used to validate the P score in prediction. Enumerations were based on immunofluorescent staining images. Distributions of CTC/CTM and their frequencies in stratified patients were carefully examined and analyzed the ROC curve and AUC value to develop the P score and P score-based prediction model. Results and conclusion: We found that the predictive power of P-score was not only comparable to the traditional cancer marker, in comparison with individual CTC/CTM, more false positives could be corrected by using P-score, thereby to improve the accuracy of analysis. From our preliminary validation tests, the prognosis and disease progression monitored longitudinally by P-score were further confirmed by clinical outcome data from physicians and its sensitivity was even better than those from individual biomarkers. We believe that this novel combinational indicator could be a promising tool to interpret clinical outcomes more accurately from multiple factors, particularly useful for the early prognosis and longitudinal monitoring in cancer patient management.
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.