ReviewJournal of molecular endocrinology2026
Laboratory diagnostics and follow-up of medullary thyroid cancer.
Review in Journal of molecular endocrinology, 2026. 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.
- Asymptomatic Medullary Thyroid Carcinoma With Isolated Carcinoembryonic Antigen Elevation in a Patient With Chronic Kidney Disease: A Case Report.Clinical case reports · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Medullary thyroid carcinoma (MTC) is a rare neuroendocrine malignancy of thyroid C-cells characterized by the secretion of several circulating biomarkers, including calcitonin (CT), procalcitonin (PCT), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA 19-9), and pro-gastrin-releasing peptide (proGRP). These analytes substantially contribute to the diagnosis, postoperative monitoring, and prognostic stratification of MTC. Nevertheless, their optimal use remains limited by analytical, pre-analytical, and biological factors that can compromise result reliability and clinical interpretation. Despite improvements in assay technology, significant inter-method variability persists for CT and CA 19-9, while heterophile antibodies, macro-analyte formation, renal dysfunction, and pharmacologic influences may cause spurious or misleading results. Moreover, a lack of harmonized reference intervals and clinical decision thresholds complicates longitudinal follow-up and inter-laboratory comparison. This review systematically addresses current laboratory challenges affecting MTC biomarkers, summarizes the main sources of false-positive or unreliable results, and discusses the complementary diagnostic roles of CT, PCT, and emerging analytes such as proGRP. Emphasis is placed on standardization needs, verification of analytical performance, and the importance of consistent assay use in patient follow-up. Ultimately, the effective management of MTC biomarkers requires active engagement of clinical chemists and pathologists within multidisciplinary teams to ensure accurate interpretation, resolve analytical ambiguities, and integrate biochemical data into evidence-based therapeutic decision-making.
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.