↓ Skip to main content

Correlates of circulating ovarian cancer early detection markers and their contribution to discrimination of early detection models: results from the EPIC cohort

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Ovarian Research, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Correlates of circulating ovarian cancer early detection markers and their contribution to discrimination of early detection models: results from the EPIC cohort
Published in
Journal of Ovarian Research, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13048-017-0315-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Renée T. Fortner, Allison F. Vitonis, Helena Schock, Anika Hüsing, Theron Johnson, Raina N. Fichorova, Titilayo Fashemi, Hidemi S. Yamamoto, Anne Tjønneland, Louise Hansen, Kim Overvad, Marie-Christine Boutron-Ruault, Marina Kvaskoff, Gianluca Severi, Heiner Boeing, Antonia Trichopoulou, Vassiliki Benetou, Carlo La Vecchia, Domenico Palli, Sabina Sieri, Rosario Tumino, Giuseppe Matullo, Amalia Mattiello, N. Charlotte Onland-Moret, Petra H. Peeters, Elisabete Weiderpass, Inger Torhild Gram, Mie Jareid, J. Ramón Quirós, Eric J. Duell, Maria-Jose Sánchez, María Dolores Chirlaque, Eva Ardanaz, Nerea Larrañaga, Björn Nodin, Jenny Brändstedt, Annika Idahl, Kay-Tee Khaw, Naomi Allen, Marc Gunter, Mattias Johansson, Laure Dossus, Melissa A. Merritt, Elio Riboli, Daniel W. Cramer, Rudolf Kaaks, Kathryn L. Terry

Abstract

Ovarian cancer early detection markers CA125, CA15.3, HE4, and CA72.4 vary between healthy women, limiting their utility for screening. We evaluated cross-sectional relationships between lifestyle and reproductive factors and these markers among controls (n = 1910) from a nested case-control study in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC). Improvements in discrimination of prediction models adjusting for correlates of the markers were evaluated among postmenopausal women in the nested case-control study (n = 590 cases). Generalized linear models were used to calculate geometric means of CA125, CA15.3, and HE4. CA72.4 above vs. below limit of detection was evaluated using logistic regression. Early detection prediction was modeled using conditional logistic regression. CA125 concentrations were lower, and CA15.3 higher, in post- vs. premenopausal women (p ≤ 0.02). Among postmenopausal women, CA125 was higher among women with higher parity and older age at menopause (ptrend ≤ 0.02), but lower among women reporting oophorectomy, hysterectomy, ever use of estrogen-only hormone therapy, or current smoking (p < 0.01). CA15.3 concentrations were higher among heavier women and in former smokers (p ≤ 0.03). HE4 was higher with older age at blood collection and in current smokers, and inversely associated with OC use duration, parity, and older age at menopause (≤ 0.02). No associations were observed with CA72.4. Adjusting for correlates of the markers in prediction models did not improve the discrimination. This study provides insights into sources of variation in ovarian cancer early detection markers in healthy women and informs about the utility of individualizing marker cutpoints based on epidemiologic factors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 65 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 15%
Student > Master 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 6%
Student > Postgraduate 3 5%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 26 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 40%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 31 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 March 2017.
All research outputs
#7,595,297
of 23,299,593 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Ovarian Research
#104
of 611 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,836
of 310,472 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Ovarian Research
#3
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,299,593 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 611 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,472 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.