Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 278

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Tumor Markers in Clinical Practice: A Review Focusing on Common Solid Cancers

Open access
Duffy, Michael J.·2013·Medical Principles and Practice

Abstract

Tumor markers are playing an increasingly important role in cancer detection and management. These laboratory-based tests are potentially useful in screening for early malignancy, aiding cancer diagnosis, determining prognosis, surveillance following curative surgery for cancer, up front predicting drug response or resistance, and monitoring therapy in advanced disease. Clinically useful markers include fecal occult blood testing in screening for early colorectal cancer, carcinoembryonic antigen in the management of patients with colorectal cancer, both α-fetoprotein and human chorionic gonadotrophin in the management of patients with non-seminomatous germ cell tumors, CA 125 for monitoring therapy in patients with ovarian cancer, estrogen receptors for predicting response to hormone therapy in breast cancer, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 for the identification of women with breast cancer likely to respond to trastuzumab (Herceptin) and KRAS mutational status for identifying patients with advanced colorectal cancer likely to benefit from treatment with the anti-epidermal growth factor receptor antibodies, cetuximab and panitumumab. Although widely used, the value of prostate-specific antigen screening in reducing mortality from prostate cancer is unclear.

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 · 10.1159/000338393

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 37 references

Cited by

See all 278

Metadata

Authors
Duffy, M. J.
Venue
Medical Principles and Practice
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2012-05-15
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
4-11
ISSN
  • 1011-7571 (ISSN-L)
  • 1423-0151
OpenAlex
W2003487510
Cited by
278
References
37
FWCI
7.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
diamond

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 Markers in Clinical Practice: A Review Focusing on Common Solid Cancers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1159/000338393
The paper
Duffy, M. J. (2013). Tumor Markers in Clinical Practice: A Review Focusing on Common Solid Cancers. Medical Principles and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1159/000338393

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.