Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 186

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Detection of Methylated SEPT9 in Plasma Is a Reliable Screening Method for Both Left- and Right-Sided Colon Cancers

Open access
Tóth, Kinga, Sipos, Ferenc, Kalmár, Alexandra, Patai, Árpád V., Wichmann, Barnabás, Stoehr, Robert, Golcher, Henriette, Schellerer, Vera, Tulassay, Zsolt, Molnár, Béla·2012·PLoS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Methylated Septin 9 (SEPT9) is a sensitive biomarker for colorectal cancer (CRC) from peripheral blood. However, its relationship to cancer localization, guaiac-based fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) have not been described. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Plasma samples were collected for SEPT9 analysis from patients with no evidence of disease (NED) (n=92) before colonoscopy and CRC (n=92) before surgical treatment. DNA was isolated and bisulfite-converted using Epi proColon kit 2.0. Qualitative determination was performed using Epi proColon 2.0 RT-PCR assay. Samples for gFOBT and CEA analysis were collected from NED (n=17 and 27, respectively) and CRC (n=22 and 27, respectively). SEPT9 test was positive in 15.2% (14/92) of NED and 95.6% (88/92) of CRC, including 100% (67/67) from stage II to stage IV CRC and 84% (21/25) of stage I CRC when a sample was called positive if 1 out of 3 PCR replicates was positive. In a second analysis (2 out of 3 PCR replicates) specificity improved to 99% (91/92) of NEDs, at a sensitivity of 79.3% (73/92) of SEPT9 positives in CRC. gFOBT was positive in 29.4% (5/17) of NED and 68.2% (15/22) of CRC and elevated CEA levels were detected in 14.8% (4/27) of NED and 51.8% (14/27) of CRC. Both SEPT9 (84.8%) and CEA (85.2%) showed higher specificity than gFOBT (70.6%). SEPT9 was positive in 96.4% (54/56) of left-sided colon cancer (LSCC) cases and 94.4% (34/36) of right-sided colon cancer (RSCC) cases. gFOBT was positive in 83.3% (10/12) of cases with LSCC and 50% (5/10) of cases with RSCC, elevated CEA was detected 60% (9/15) of LSCC and 41.7% (5/12) of RSCC. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The high degree of sensitivity and specificity of SEPT9 in plasma makes it a better method to detect CRC than gFOBT and CEA, even for the more difficult to detect RSCC.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0046000

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Metadata

Authors
Tóth, K., Sipos, F., Kalmár, A., Patai, Á. V., Wichmann, B., Stoehr, R., Golcher, H., Schellerer, V., Tulassay, Z., & Molnár, B.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2012-09-25
Volume
7
Issue
9
Pages
e46000
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1989605148
Cited by
186
References
1
FWCI
6.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Detection of Methylated SEPT9 in Plasma Is a Reliable Screening Method for Both Left- and Right-Sided Colon Cancers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0046000
The paper
Tóth, K., Sipos, F., Kalmár, A., Patai, Á. V., Wichmann, B., Stoehr, R., Golcher, H., Schellerer, V., Tulassay, Z., & Molnár, B. (2012). Detection of Methylated SEPT9 in Plasma Is a Reliable Screening Method for Both Left- and Right-Sided Colon Cancers. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0046000

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.