ArticleClinical and experimental medicine2026
A proteomics approach to identify predictive blood biomarkers for pleural mesothelioma in prospective cohorts.
Article in Clinical and experimental medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
27 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPleural mesothelioma (PM) is a rare, asbestos-linked cancer with a long asymptomatic latency, delaying diagnosis and limiting treatment options. Identifying blood‐based biomarkers that signal disease before symptoms onset could improve surveillance of at‐risk individuals.
methodsIn our work, we conducted a prospective proteomic study of pre-diagnostic serum from 21 PM cases (< 5 years before diagnosis) and 21 asbestos‐exposed controls in the EPIC cohort using SWATH‐MS, followed by ELISA validation. Findings were tested in an independent MoMar cohort of 32 pre‐diagnostic plasma samples (< 1 year before diagnosis) and 32 matched controls.
resultsSWATH-MS identified 12 differentially expressed proteins (nominal p < 0.05, fold change > 1.3 or < 0.75). Transferrin and complement C4A were elevated, while beta‐2‐microglobulin and dermcidin were reduced in pre‐diagnostic cases. ELISA confirmed a borderline significant rise in beta‐2‐microglobulin within two years of diagnosis in EPIC. Calretinin and mesothelin were also detected in both cohorts, with the five‐marker panel achieving an AUC of 0.91 (p = 0.001) in MoMar but not reaching significance in EPIC (AUC = 0.88, p = 0.17).
conclusionsIntegrating novel proteomic biomarker candidates with established markers enhances early PM detection in high-risk populations. Larger, multi‐cohort validation is warranted to refine this biomarker panel for clinical surveillance.
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.