ArticleCancer medicine2022
The role of microvesicles as biomarkers in the screening of colorectal neoplasm.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Circulating large extracellular vesicles as diagnostic biomarkers of indeterminate thyroid nodules: multi-platform omics analysis.BJS open · 2024Article
- Precision Oncology: Circulating Microvesicles as New Biomarkers in a Very Early Stage of Colorectal Cancer.Cancers · 2024Article
- Emerging connections between GPI-anchored proteins and their extracellular carriers in colorectal cancer.Extracellular vesicles and circulating nucleic acids · 2023Article
- Extracellular Vesicles and Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Activation: Interplay of Drivers in Cancer Progression.Cancers · 2023Review
- The role of microvesicles as biomarkers in the screening of colorectal neoplasm.Cancer medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) is the second cause of cancer death worldwide. The role of circulating microvesicles as a screening tool is a novel, yet effective approach that warrants prioritised research.
methodsIn a two-gate diagnostic accuracy study, 35 patients with benign colorectal polyps (BCRP) (n = 16) and colorectal cancer (CRC) (n = 19) were compared to 17 age-matched healthy controls. Total annexin-V positive microvesicles and sub-populations positive for selected biomarkers relevant to bowel neoplasm were evaluated in patients' plasma using flow cytometry. Statistical methods including factor analysis utilising two component factors were performed to obtain optimal diagnostic accuracy of microvesicles in identifying patients with colorectal neoplasms.
resultsTotal plasma microvesicles, and sub-populations positive for CD31, CD42a, CD31+/CD42a-, EPHB2, ICAM and LGR5 (component factor-1) were able to identify patients with BCRP and CRC with a receiver operator curve (AUC) accuracy of a 100% (95% CI: 100%-100%) and 95% (95% CI: 88%-100%), respectively. To identify patients with BCRP, a cut-off point value of component factor-1761 microvesicles/μl demonstrated a 100% sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive value (NPV) and a 93% positive predictive value (PPV). To identify patients with CRC, a cut-off value of component factor-1
conclusionsMicrovesicles as biomarkers for the early and accurate detection of CRC is a simple and effective tool that yields a potential breakthrough in clinical management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.