Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40038821›Full record

ArticleJournal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR2025

A blood-based liquid biopsy analyzing soluble immune checkpoints and cytokines identifies distinct neuroendocrine tumors.

Pablo Mata-Martínez, Lucía Celada, Francisco J Cueto, Gonzalo Sáenz de Santa María, Jaime Fernández, Verónica Terrón-Arcos, Nuria Valdés, Vanesa García Moreira, María Isabel Enguita Del Toro, Eduardo López-Collazo and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

12 authors.

Pablo Mata-MartínezThe Innate Immune Response Group, La Paz University Hospital Research Institute (IdiPAZ), Paseo de La Castellana 261, Madrid, 28046, Spain.
Lucía CeladaHealth Research Institute of the Principado de Asturias (ISPA), Av. de Roma S/N, Oviedo, 33011, Spain.
Francisco J CuetoThe Innate Immune Response Group, La Paz University Hospital Research Institute (IdiPAZ), Paseo de La Castellana 261, Madrid, 28046, Spain.
Gonzalo Sáenz de Santa MaríaThe Innate Immune Response Group, La Paz University Hospital Research Institute (IdiPAZ), Paseo de La Castellana 261, Madrid, 28046, Spain.
Jaime FernándezThe Innate Immune Response Group, La Paz University Hospital Research Institute (IdiPAZ), Paseo de La Castellana 261, Madrid, 28046, Spain.
Verónica Terrón-ArcosThe Innate Immune Response Group, La Paz University Hospital Research Institute (IdiPAZ), Paseo de La Castellana 261, Madrid, 28046, Spain.
Nuria ValdésEndocrinology and Nutrition Department, Hospital Universitario Cruces, Biobizkaia, UPV/EHU, CIBERDEM, CIBERER, Endo-ERN, Barakaldo, Bizkaia, Spain.
Vanesa García MoreiraClinical Analysis Service, San Agustín University Hospital, Avilés, Spain.
María Isabel Enguita Del ToroClinical Analysis Service, Central University Hospital of Asturias, Oviedo, Spain.
Eduardo López-CollazoThe Innate Immune Response Group, La Paz University Hospital Research Institute (IdiPAZ), Paseo de La Castellana 261, Madrid, 28046, Spain.
María-Dolores ChiaraHealth Research Institute of the Principado de Asturias (ISPA), Av. de Roma S/N, Oviedo, 33011, Spain. mdchiara.uo@uniovi.es.
Carlos Del FresnoThe Innate Immune Response Group, La Paz University Hospital Research Institute (IdiPAZ), Paseo de La Castellana 261, Madrid, 28046, Spain. carlos.fresno@salud.madrid.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1771-7254

Funding

Comunidad de Madrid IND2022/BMD-23669Comunidad de Madrid PEJ-2021-TL/BMD-21048Fundación Científica Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer IDEAS222745DELFInstituto de Salud Carlos III CD21/00185Instituto de Salud Carlos III CP20/00106Instituto de Salud Carlos III FORT23/00006Instituto de Salud Carlos III PI 14/01234Instituto de Salud Carlos III PI 18/00148Instituto de Salud Carlos III PI20/01754Instituto de Salud Carlos III PI21/00869Instituto de Salud Carlos III PI21/01178Instituto de Salud Carlos III PI24/01106Instituto de Salud Carlos III PIE 15/00065Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación FPU2017-01317Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades PID2023-151388OB-I00
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNeuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) comprise a group of rare tumors originating from neuroendocrine cells, which are present in both endocrine glands and scattered throughout the body. Due to their scarcity and absence of specific markers, diagnosing NENs remains a complex challenge. Therefore, new biomarkers are required, ideally, in easy-to-obtain blood samples.

methodsA panel of blood soluble immune checkpoints (sPD-L1, sPD-L2, sPD-1, sCD25, sTIM3, sLAG3, Galectin-9, sCD27, sB7.2 and sSIGLEC5) and cytokines (IL4, IL6, IP10 and MCP1) was quantified in a cohort of 139 NENs, including 29 pituitary NENs, 46 pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas, and 67 gastroenteropancreatic and pulmonary (GEPP) NENs, as well as in 64 healthy volunteers (HVs). The potential of these circulating immunological parameters to distinguish NENs from HVs, differentiate among various NENs subtypes, and predict their prognosis was evaluated using mathematical regression models. These immunological factors-based models generated scores that were evaluated by Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) and Area Under the Curve (AUC) analyses. Correlations between these scores and clinical data were performed. From these analyses, a minimal signature emerged, comprising the five shared immunological factors across the models: sCD25, sPD-L2, sTIM3, sLAG3, and Galectin-9. This refined signature was evaluated, validated, and checked for specificity against non-neuroendocrine tumors, demonstrating its potential as a clinically relevant tool for identifying distinct NENs.

resultsMost of the immunological factors analyzed showed specific expression patterns among different NENs. Scores based on signatures of these factors identified NENs with high efficiency, showing AUCs ranging between 0.948 and 0.993 depending on the comparison, and accuracies between 92.52% and 95.74%. These scores illustrated biological features of NENs including the similarity between pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas, the divergence between gastrointestinal and pulmonary NENs, and correlated with clinical features. Furthermore, the models demonstrated strong performance in distinguishing metastatic and exitus GEPP NENs, achieving sensitivities and specificities ranging from 80.95% to 88.89%. Additionally, an easy-to-implement minimal signature successfully identified all analyzed NENs with AUC values exceeding 0.900, and accuracies between 84.11% and 93.12%, which was internally validated by a discovery and validation randomization strategy. These findings highlight the effectiveness of the models and minimal signature in accurately diagnosing and differentiating NENs.

conclusionsThe analysis of soluble immunological factors in blood presents a promising liquid biopsy approach for identifying NENs, delivering critical insights for both prognosis and diagnosis. This study serves as a proof-of-concept for an innovative clinical tool that holds the potential to transform the management of these rare malignancies, providing a non-invasive and effective method for early detection and disease monitoring.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorCytokinesImmune Checkpoint ProteinsNeuroendocrine TumorsAdultAgedFemaleHumansLiquid BiopsyMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisBiomarkers, TumorCytokinesImmune Checkpoint ProteinsImmunological factorLiquid biopsyNeuroendocrine neoplasmSoluble immune checkpoint

Identifiers

PMID40038821
PMCPMC11881345

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.