Dataset Information

Improved diagnostic accuracy with three lung tumor markers compared to six-marker panel.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Combining multiple tumor markers increases sensitivity for lung cancer diagnosis in the cost of false positive. However, some would like to check as many as tumor markers in the fear of missing cancer. We though to propose a panel of fewer tumor markers for lung cancer diagnosis.

Methods

Patients with suspected lung cancer who simultaneously underwent all six tests [carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), cytokeratin-19 fragment (CYFRA), squamous cell carcinoma-associated antigen (SCC), neuron-specific enolase (NSE), pro-gastrin-releasing peptide (ProGRP), and sialyl Lewis-X antigen (SLX)] were included. Tumor markers with significant impact on the lung cancer in a logistic regression model were included in our panel. Area under the curve (AUC) was compared between our panel and the panel of all six.

Results

We included 1,733 [median 72 years, 1,128 men, 605 women, 779 (45%) confirmed lung cancer]. Logistic regression analysis suggested CEA, CYFRA, and NSE were independently associated with the lung cancer diagnosis. The panel of these three tumor markers [AUC =0.656, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.630-0.682, sensitivity 0.650, specificity 0.662] had better (P<0.001) diagnostic performance than six tumor markers (AUC =0.575, 95% CI: 0.548-0.602, sensitivity 0.829, specificity 0.321).

Conclusions

Compared to applying all six markers (at least one marker above the upper limit of normal), the panel with three markers (at least one marker above the upper limit of normal) led to a better predictive value by lowering the risk of false positives.

SUBMITTER: Izawa A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC11002512 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Improved diagnostic accuracy with three lung tumor markers compared to six-marker panel.

Izawa Ami A Hara Yu Y Horita Nobuyuki N Muraoka Suguru S Kaneko Megumi M Kaneko Ayami A Somekawa Kohei K Hirata Momo M Otsu Yukiko Y Matsumoto Hiromi H Nagasawa Ryo R Tanaka Katsushi K Kubo Sousuke S Murohashi Kota K Aoki Ayako A Fujii Hiroaki H Watanabe Keisuke K Kobayashi Nobuaki N Miura Kenji K Nakajima Hideaki H Kaneko Takeshi T

Translational lung cancer research 20240315 3

<h4>Background</h4>Combining multiple tumor markers increases sensitivity for lung cancer diagnosis in the cost of false positive. However, some would like to check as many as tumor markers in the fear of missing cancer. We though to propose a panel of fewer tumor markers for lung cancer diagnosis.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients with suspected lung cancer who simultaneously underwent all six tests [carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), cytokeratin-19 fragment (CYFRA), squamous cell carcinoma-associated antig ...[more]

PMID: 38601457

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAssessing the accuracy of diagnostic coding is essential to ensure the validity and reliability of administrative coded data. The aim of the study was to evaluate the accuracy of assigned International Classification of Diseases version 10-Australian Modification (ICD-10-AM) codes for influenza by comparing with patients' results of their polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based laboratory tests.MethodA retrospective study was conducted across seven public hospitals in New South Wales, Australia. A total of 16,439 patients who were admitted and tested by either cartridge-based rapid PCR or batched multiplex PCR between January 2016 and December 2017 met the inclusion criteria. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of ICD-10-AM coding using laboratory results as a gold standard. Separate analyses were conducted to determine whether the availability of test results at the time of hospital discharge influenced diagnostic coding accuracy.ResultsLaboratory results revealed 2759 positive influenza cases, while ICD-10-AM coding identified 2527 patients. Overall, 13.7% (n = 378) of test positive patients were not assigned an ICD-10-AM code for influenza. A further 5.8% (n = 146) patients with negative test results were incorrectly assigned an ICD-10-AM code for influenza. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of ICD-10-AM coding were 93.1%; 98.9%; 94.5% and 98.6% respectively when test results were received before discharge and 32.7%; 99.2%; 87.8% and 89.8% respectively when test results were not available at discharge. The sensitivity of ICD-10-AM coding varied significantly across hospitals. The use of rapid PCR or hospitalisation during the influenza season were associated with greater coding accuracy.ConclusionAlthough ICD-10-AM coding for influenza demonstrated high accuracy when laboratory results were received before discharge, its sensitivity was substantially lower for patients whose test results were not available at discharge. The timely availability of laboratory test results during the episode of care could contribute to improved coding accuracy.

Dataset Information

Improved diagnostic accuracy with three lung tumor markers compared to six-marker panel.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Improved diagnostic accuracy with three lung tumor markers compared to six-marker panel.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets