ArticleInternational journal of cancer2025
Prospective evaluation of 92 protein biomarkers for early detection of endometrial cancer.
Article in International journal of cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preoperative CA125 and metabolic factors associated with high-risk pathology in endometrial cancer.Oncology letters · 2026Article
- Molecular mechanisms by which C1orf112 promotes endometrial cancer progression and the development and validation of a clinical scoring model.Clinical epigenetics · 2025Article
- Prospective evaluation of 92 protein biomarkers for early detection of endometrial cancer.International journal of cancer · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) remains the best available endometrial cancer (EC) biomarker; however, its discrimination between cases and cancer-free individuals is limited and might be improved when combined with other protein markers. We evaluated the discrimination capacity of 92 proteins as potential early detection biomarkers for EC in nested case-control studies in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) (63 cases, 123 controls) and Janus (75 cases, 146 controls) cohorts, evaluating blood samples taken ≤2 years prior to diagnosis. Proteins were measured with the Olink Target 96 Oncology II panel assays. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) were calculated using logistic regression. The discrimination between cases and controls of top-performing proteins was modest (EPIC: HE4, CA125, CAIX, and S100A4; Janus: HE4, CA125, FURIN, CXCL13, and IL6; AUC range: 0.65 [S100A4], 0.76 [HE4, EPIC] within 0 to <12 months of blood collection) and decreased as the time between blood draw and cancer diagnosis increased (12-24 months AUC range: 0.49 [S100A4], 0.69 [CA125, Janus]). The combination of these other markers with HE4 did not improve discrimination. HE4 and other candidate proteins had limited discrimination between EC cases and controls and hence do not appear to be useful for early detection of this disease in women at average population risk.
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.