Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 748

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Tumor Marker Utility Grading System: a Framework to Evaluate Clinical Utility of Tumor Markers

Hayes, D. F., Bast, R. C., Desch, C. E., Fritsche, H., Kemeny, N. E., Jessup, J. M., Locker, G. Y., Macdonald, J. S., Mennel, R. G., Norton, L., Ravdin, P., Taube, S., Winn, R. J.·1996·JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Abstract

Introduction of tumor markers into routine clinical practice has been poorly controlled, with few criteria or guidelines as to how such markers should be used. We propose a Tumor Marker Utility Grading System (TMUGS) to evaluate the clinical utility of tumor markers and to establish an investigational agenda for evaluation of new tumor markers. A Tumor Marker Utility Grading Worksheet has been designed. The initial portion of this worksheet is used to clarify the precise characteristics of the marker in question. These characteristics include the marker designation, the molecule and/or substance and the relevant alteration from normalcy, the assay format and reagents, the specimen type, and the neoplastic disease for which the marker is being evaluated. To determine the clinical utility of each marker, one of several potential uses must be designated, including risk assessment, screening, differential diagnosis, prognosis, and monitoring clinical course. For each of these uses, associations between marker assay results and expected biologic process and end points must be determined. However, knowledge of tumor marker data should contribute to a decision in practice that results in a more favorable clinical outcome for the patient, including increased overall survival, increased disease-free survival, improvement in quality of life, or reduction in cost of care. Semiquantitative utility scales have been developed for each end point. The only markers recommended for use in routine clinical practice are those that are assigned utility scores of "++" or " " on a 6-point scale (ranging from 0 to ) in the categories relative to more favorable clinical outcomes. Each utility score assignment should be supported by documentation of the level of evidence used to evaluate the marker. TMUGS will establish a standardized analytic technique to evaluate clinical utility of known and future tumor markers. It should result in improved patient outcomes and more cost-efficient investigation and application of tumor markers.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jnci/88.20.1456

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.

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

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

See all 748

Metadata

Authors
Hayes, D. F., Bast, R. C., Desch, C. E., Fritsche, H., Kemeny, N. E., Jessup, J. M., Locker, G. Y., Macdonald, J. S., Mennel, R. G., Norton, L., Ravdin, P., Taube, S., & Winn, R. J.
Venue
JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Published
1996-10-16
Volume
88
Issue
20
Pages
1456-1466
ISSN
  • 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2105
OpenAlex
W2115581335
Cited by
748
References
0
FWCI
4.53
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: Tumor Marker Utility Grading System: a Framework to Evaluate Clinical Utility of Tumor Markers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/88.20.1456
The paper
Hayes, D. F., Bast, R. C., Desch, C. E., Fritsche, H., Kemeny, N. E., Jessup, J. M., Locker, G. Y., Macdonald, J. S., Mennel, R. G., Norton, L., Ravdin, P., Taube, S., & Winn, R. J. (1996). Tumor Marker Utility Grading System: a Framework to Evaluate Clinical Utility of Tumor Markers. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/88.20.1456

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.