ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Clinical value of cystatin S in patients with colorectal cancer chemotherapy.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and validation of a nomogram to assess recurrence risk in young patients with breast cancer based on preoperative serum tumor markers.Gland surgery · 2026Article
- [Cephaeline attenuates malignant biological behaviors of colorectal cancer by regulating the Ras signaling pathway].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2026Article
- Article
- Prognostic Factors and Biomarker Performance in Patients with Colorectal Cancer Receiving Reduced-Dose 5-Fluorouracil Therapy: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic utility of serum cystatin S (CST4) in chemotherapy-treated colorectal cancer (CRC) patients and establish its complementary value to conventional tumor markers. Methods: This retrospective cohort study analyzed 81 CRC patients receiving chemotherapy and 83 colorectal polyp controls. Serum CST4 levels were quantified by ELISA alongside six conventional tumor markers (CEA, CA125, CA153, CA199, AFP, CA724). Diagnostic performance was assessed through ROC analysis and multivariate logistic regression. Additionally, Results: CRC patients exhibited significantly elevated CST4 levels compared to polyp controls (median [IQR]: 54.07 [32.18-91.49] vs 37.48 [24.18-49.28] U/mL, P<0.05). CST4 demonstrated superior diagnostic performance with AUC = 0.689 (95%CI:0.607-0.771), outperforming individual conventional markers. Notably, CST4 maintained diagnostic independence across tumor stages (P>0.05) and age groups. A multimodal diagnostic model combining CST4 with CEA, CA724, and CA125 significantly enhanced detection capability (AUC = 0.828, sensitivity 74.1%, specificity 81.9%), representing a 28.4% sensitivity improvement over CST4 alone. Conclusion: CST4 emerges as a stable post-chemotherapy biomarker that effectively discriminates malignant colorectal lesions. Its integration with conventional markers creates a robust diagnostic algorithm, while functional validation supports a mechanistic role via PDGFRB-mediated pathways. These findings position CST4 as a promising candidate for therapeutic monitoring and recurrence detection in CRC 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.