The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Autoantibody Signatures in Prostate Cancer
Abstract
BACKGROUND: New biomarkers, such as autoantibody signatures, may improve the early detection of prostate cancer. METHODS: With a phage-display library derived from prostate-cancer tissue, we developed and used phage protein microarrays to analyze serum samples from 119 patients with prostate cancer and 138 controls, with the samples equally divided into training and validation sets. A phage-peptide detector that was constructed from the training set was evaluated on an independent validation set of 128 serum samples (60 from patients with prostate cancer and 68 from controls). RESULTS: A 22-phage-peptide detector had 88.2 percent specificity (95 percent confidence interval, 0.78 to 0.95) and 81.6 percent sensitivity (95 percent confidence interval, 0.70 to 0.90) in discriminating between the group with prostate cancer and the control group. This panel of peptides performed better than did prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in distinguishing between the group with prostate cancer and the control group (area under the curve for the autoantibody signature, 0.93; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.88 to 0.97; area under the curve for PSA, 0.80; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.71 to 0.88). Logistic-regression analysis revealed that the phage-peptide panel provided additional discriminative power over PSA (P<0.001). Among the 22 phage peptides used as a detector, 4 were derived from in-frame, named coding sequences. The remaining phage peptides were generated from untranslated sequences. CONCLUSIONS: Autoantibodies against peptides derived from prostate-cancer tissue could be used as the basis for a screening test for prostate cancer.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Protein biomarker discovery and validation: the long and uncertain path to clinical utility
Rifai, N., Gillette, M. A., & Carr, S. A. (2006) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt1235 · Cited by 1,867
Cancer despite immunosurveillance: immunoselection and immunosubversion
Zitvogel, L., Tesniere, A., & Kroemer, G. (2006) · Nature reviews. Immunology · doi:10.1038/nri1936 · Cited by 1,324
Fuertes, M. B., Kacha, A. K., Kline, J., Woo, S.-R., Kranz, D. M., Murphy, K. M., & Gajewski, T. F. (2011) · Journal of Experimental Medicine · doi:10.1084/jem.20101159 · Cited by 1,192
Mining the plasma proteome for cancer biomarkers
Hanash, S. M., Pitteri, S. J., & Faca, V. M. (2008) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature06916 · Cited by 891
Strategies for discovering novel cancer biomarkers through utilization of emerging technologies
Kulasingam, V., & Diamandis, E. P. (2008) · Nature Clinical Practice Oncology · doi:10.1038/ncponc1187 · Cited by 771
Metadata
- Authors
- Wang, X., Yu, J., Sreekumar, A., Varambally, S., Shen, R., Giacherio, D., Mehra, R., Montie, J. E., Pienta, K. J., Sanda, M. G., Kantoff, P. W., Rubin, M. A., Wei, J. T., Ghosh, D., & Chinnaiyan, A. M.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 2005-09-22
- Volume
- 353
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1224-1235
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2041181510
- Cited by
- 582
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 42.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Autoantibody Signatures in Prostate Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa051931
- The paper
- Wang, X., Yu, J., Sreekumar, A., Varambally, S., Shen, R., Giacherio, D., Mehra, R., Montie, J. E., Pienta, K. J., Sanda, M. G., Kantoff, P. W., Rubin, M. A., Wei, J. T., Ghosh, D., & Chinnaiyan, A. M. (2005). Autoantibody Signatures in Prostate Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa051931
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.