Cited by 67Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology ResearchAI in cancer detectionPancreatitis Pathology and Treatment

Development of PancRISK, a urine biomarker-based risk score for stratified screening of pancreatic cancer patients

Open access
Blyuss, Oleg, Zaikin, Alexey, Cherepanova, Valeriia, Munblit, Daniel, Kiseleva, Elena M., Prytomanova, Olga M., Duffy, Stephen W., Crnogorac-Jurcevic, Tatjana·2020·British Journal of Cancer

Abstract

Background: An accurate and simple risk prediction model that would facilitate earlier detection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is not available at present. In this study, we compare different algorithms of risk prediction in order to select the best one for constructing a biomarker-based risk score, PancRISK. Methods: Three hundred and seventy-nine patients with available measurements of three urine biomarkers, (LYVE1, REG1B and TFF1) using retrospectively collected samples, as well as creatinine and age, were randomly split into training and validation sets, following stratification into cases (PDAC) and controls (healthy patients). Several machine learning algorithms were used, and their performance characteristics were compared. The latter included AUC (area under ROC curve) and sensitivity at clinically relevant specificity. Results: None of the algorithms significantly outperformed all others. A logistic regression model, the easiest to interpret, was incorporated into a PancRISK score and subsequently evaluated on the whole data set. The PancRISK performance could be even further improved when CA19-9, commonly used PDAC biomarker, is added to the model. Conclusion: PancRISK score enables easy interpretation of the biomarker panel data and is currently being tested to confirm that it can be used for stratification of patients at risk of developing pancreatic cancer completely non-invasively, using urine samples.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41416-019-0694-0

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Blood remains the most commonly studied biospecimen for early detection, but many analytes are also present in other proximate samples, including pancreatic juice, stool, urine, saliva, and pancreatic cyst fluid.

    “In passing, it also needs to be stated that, although blood remains the most commonly studied biospecimen for early detection, many of the analytes are also present in other proximate samples, including pancreatic juice,53,54 stool,55 urine,56,57 saliva,58 and pancreatic cyst fluid.59”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [19]Bishop, C. M. Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning (Springer, 2006).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Blyuss, O., Zaikin, A., Cherepanova, V., Munblit, D., Kiseleva, E. M., Prytomanova, O. M., Duffy, S. W., & Crnogorac-Jurcevic, T.
Affiliations
  • University of Hertfordshire (GB)
  • Sechenov University (RU)
  • University College London (GB)
  • Oles Honchar Dnipro National University (UA)
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Blyuss, Oleg
Venue
British Journal of Cancer
Published
2019-12-20
Volume
122
Issue
5
Pages
692-696
ISSN
  • 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-1827
OpenAlex
W2995984299
Cited by
67
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 5
FWCI
2.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Cancer (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Hertfordshire Research Archive (University of Hertfordshire) (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Hertfordshire Research Archive (University of Hertfordshire) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Pancreatic Cancer Research Fund
  • DH | National Institute for Health Research
  • DH | NIHR | Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Pancreatitis Pathology and Treatment
Keywords
pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, risk score, urinary biomarkers, LYVE-1, REG1B, TFF1, CA19-9, risk prediction model, logistic regression, machine learning algorithm comparison, early cancer detection, non-invasive screening, patient stratification
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Trefoil Factor-1, Aged, Algorithms, Creatinine, Humans, Middle Aged, Neoplasm Staging, Pancreatic Neoplasms, Predictive Value of Tests, Risk, Biomarkers, Tumor, Models, Statistical, Logistic Models, Case-Control Studies, Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal, Vesicular Transport Proteins, Lithostathine, Early Detection of Cancer

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review