ArticleCancer medicine2025
Diagnostic Values of Electrochemiluminescent Detection of Urinary CYFRA21-1 and FDP and Their Combined Detection in Bladder Cancer.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
backgroundBladder cancer is the most common malignant tumor in the urinary system. The acquisition of urine samples has the advantages of being rapid and painless, and it can directly contact the lesions. It is an ideal source of non-invasive tumor markers. The problems with urine markers are low specificity, the propensity for false positives or missed detections, and there is no unified diagnostic standard to measure the test results, which limits the clinical application of urine markers. In this study, we evaluate the diagnostic values of Cytokeratin 19 fragment (CYFRA21-1), Fibrin/fibrinogen degradation products (FDP) and CYFRA21-1 + FDP in bladder cancer, with the objective to expand the application scope of urinary tumor markers in the diagnosis of bladder cancer.
methodsWe evaluated the performances of the CYFRA21-1 assay kit (electrochemiluminescence) and/or FDP assay kit (electrochemiluminescence) in detecting bladder cancer. CYFRA21-1 and FDP levels were determined in urine samples from 467 participants in South China Hospital of Shenzhen University and Shenzhen Luohu People's Hospital. We performed performance validation of the CYFRA21-1 and FDP kits, established normal biological reference intervals, and finally analyzed the data to assess their diagnostic efficacies alone or in combination.
resultsThe bladder cancer group had significantly higher urinary levels of CYFRA21-1 and FDP than the control group. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC-AUCs) of CYFRA21-1, FDP, and CYFRA21-1 + FDP were 0.929, 0.857, and 0.935, respectively, for discriminating bladder cancer cases from controls. The ROC-AUC of CYFRA21-1 and FDP in combination was higher than that of any index alone.
conclusionsBoth CYFRA21-1 and FDP have good diagnostic values in predicting bladder cancer. In addition, combined detection of urinary CYFRA21-1 and FDP by electrochemiluminescence has better differentiation ability compared with each index alone and may be used for early screening and recurrence monitoring in bladder cancer.
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.