ArticleEuropean journal of neurology2025
Tumor Marker Test in Cerebrospinal Fluid for Leptomeningeal Metastasis Diagnosis and Response Assessment in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.
Article in European journal of neurology, 2025. 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.
- Clinical and CSF Measurements for Identification of Leptomeningeal Metastasis in Lung Adenocarcinoma.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Serial CSF CA19-9 monitoring and CSF genomic profiling in ERBB2-mutant lung adenocarcinoma with leptomeningeal metastasis: a case report.Frontiers in oncology · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundsCurrent methods for diagnosis and disease monitoring for leptomeningeal metastasis (LM) face significant challenges, as they are relatively complex and lack the precision needed to detect subtle changes.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective study with the primary endpoint of assessing the diagnostic effectiveness of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) tumor markers in LM patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Secondary endpoints included evaluating the concordance with EANO-ESMO response assessment, determining optimal thresholds, and comparing costs against CSF ctDNA tests.
resultsWe retrospectively included 368 patients (151 LM patients, 219 non-LM patients) as the training set, and another 137 patients (63 LM patients, 74 non-LM patients) on a consecutive basis as the validation set. The CSF tumor marker panel using a logistic model showed the best performance both in the training set (AUC [95% CI] = 0.992 [0.984-1.000]) and the validation set (AUC [95% CI] = 0.939 [0.891-0.986]). In the response assessment, 167 events were evaluated, with 33 classified as response, 59 as stable, and 75 as progression. We found a concordance with EANO-ESMO response assessment, and a threshold of ± 25% of the maximal CSF tumor marker level change (maxTML) yielded the optimal predictive performance. Finally, the cost of the CSF tumor marker test (0.76%, IQR (0.30%-1.67%)) was significantly lower in a single hospitalization than CSF ctDNA (62.45%, IQR (32.62%-85.81%)).
conclusionOur study demonstrated that the CSF tumor marker test was an accurate, easily interpretable, and cheap tool for both diagnosis and monitoring therapeutic response in LM patients with NSCLC.
trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR) number: ChiCTR2300078556.
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.