Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Jun 23;21(6):e0341522. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0341522

Longitudinal analysis of CYFRA 21-1 levels in patients with pulmonary nodules: Differential trajectories between benign and malignant cases

Yency J Forero 1, Michael N Kammer 1,2, Kevin C McGann 3, Hudson Holmes 3, Sheau-Chiann Chen 4, Heidi Chen 4, Samson Argaw 1, Timothy A Khalil 1, Sanja L Antic 1, Yong Zou 1, Lianrui Zuo 5,6, Thomas A Lasko 7, Bennet A Landman 5,6,7, Stephen A Deppen 3,8, Eric L Grogan 3,8, Fabien Maldonado 1,*
Editor: Fumihiro Yamaguchi9
PMCID: PMC13289921  PMID: 42335041

Abstract

Background

CYFRA 21−1, a cytokeratin-19 fragment, is a validated serum biomarker for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, most studies rely on single time-point measurements, limiting its specificity in differentiating malignancy from benign pulmonary conditions. Inspired by the clinical utility of serial PSA measurements in prostate cancer, we investigated whether longitudinal trends in CYFRA 21−1 could enhance diagnostic and monitoring capabilities in patients with pulmonary nodules.

Methods and Findings

We analyzed 132 patients with pulmonary nodules from the Vanderbilt Thoracic Biorepository. For the primary analysis, patients who underwent treatment prior to biomarker assessment were excluded, resulting in an untreated cohort of 121 patients (91 benign and 30 malignant nodules). CYFRA 21−1 levels were measured serially using electrochemiluminescence assays. Longitudinal trends were assessed using linear mixed-effects models to estimate biomarker trajectories. Primary analyses compared benign vs. malignant nodules using longitudinal modeling of log-transformed CYFRA 21−1 values. At baseline, CYFRA 21−1 levels were significantly higher in malignant versus benign nodules. Longitudinal mixed-effects modeling did not demonstrate statistically significant differences in trajectories between benign and malignant nodules. Benign nodules showed a small positive trend in log(CYFRA 21−1) whereas malignant nodules showed greater longitudinal variability. The magnitude of change assessed using the absolute slope of log(CYFRA 21−1) was significantly greater in malignant nodules compared with benign nodules (p < 0.05). Exploratory diagnostic analysis showed that baseline log(CYFRA 21−1) achieved and AUC of 0.68 (95% CI 0.56-0.79) with sensitivity 0.63 and specificity 0.71. The absolute slope of log(CYFRA 21−1) yielded an AUC of 0.67 (95% CI 0.48-0.87) with sensitivity 0.39 and specificity 0.97.

Conclusions

CYFRA 21−1 exhibits substantial within-patient variability over time, with trajectories that reflect disease state and treatment. These findings suggest that longitudinal monitoring of CYFRA 21−1 may provide additional information beyond single time-point measurements in the evaluation of pulmonary nodules. Further studies in large prospective cohorts are warranted to validate these findings before clinical implementation.

Introduction

Cytokeratin-19 fragment (CYFRA 21−1) is a well-established serum biomarker that has been widely studied in lung cancer, particularly non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), for both diagnostic and prognostic purposes [1,2]. Many studies have evaluated CYFRA 21−1 for diagnosis or prognosis of lung cancer, either alone or in combination with other biomarkers [3–7]. Most prior studies, however, have focused on single time-point measurements (e.g., baseline levels) of CYFRA 21−1, rather than evaluating how biomarker levels evolve longitudinally over time in patients undergoing clinical evaluation for pulmonary nodules, particularly in comparison between benign and malignant nodules prior to definitive treatment. This limitation may contribute to reduced diagnostic specificity, as CYFRA 21−1 levels can also be elevated in inflammatory or other epithelial conditions, such as Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and Interstitial Lung Fibrosis (IPF) [8]. In contrast, the clinical management of prostate cancer has long recognized the importance of biomarker trajectories. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) “velocity” – the rate of PSA change – is an established concept used to improve early cancer detection. This concept illustrates how temporal biomarker patterns may provide clinically meaningful information beyond single measurements. For example, a rise in PSA greater than ~0.75 ng/mL per year is considered suspicious for prostate cancer, even if absolute PSA values are not yet above a static threshold [9]. Serial PSA measurements (velocity and doubling time) are routinely used to trigger biopsies, guide treatment decisions, and monitor for recurrence. This analogy suggests that tracking the temporal trajectory of a cancer biomarker can provide critical information beyond a single snapshot and helps us understand that similar longitudinal approaches could potentially improve interpretation of serum biomarkers in other malignancies.

By extension, the trajectory of CYFRA 21−1 might enhance the evaluation of pulmonary nodules. Pulmonary nodules are a common clinical dilemma, requiring differentiation between benign lesions and early lung cancer. In clinical practice, indeterminate pulmonary nodules (IPNs) are often managed with longitudinal imaging surveillance, where stability over time supports a benign diagnosis, whereas interval growth raises concern for malignancy. While a single elevated CYFRA 21−1 level can support a lung cancer diagnosis, longitudinal changes in CYFRA 21−1 could potentially signal malignancy (or benign behavior) earlier or more reliably. Recent research in lung cancer screening has begun exploring serial biomarker algorithms: repeated measurements of panels including CYFRA 21−1 have shown improved sensitivity and earlier detection of lung cancer compared to a one-time threshold approach [10]. Despite this interest, the temporal behavior of CYFRA 21−1 within individual patients for example, whether CYFRA trends upward in growing cancers or remains stable in benign nodules remains understudied.

Here we present a longitudinal analysis of CYFRA 21−1 in patients with pulmonary nodules, comparing biomarker trajectories between benign and malignant nodules using repeated measurements and mixed effects modeling. We aimed to determine whether malignant nodules demonstrate distinct longitudinal CYFRA 21−1 trajectories compared with benign lesions.

Methods

Study Cohort

Patients with pulmonary nodules were identified from the Vanderbilt University Thoracic Biorepository. This prospective collection with retrospective blinded evaluation (PROBE) study analyzed serum samples from patients with pulmonary nodules who underwent serial blood sampling during their clinical evaluation. Because this study represents an exploratory analysis using available biorepository samples, a formal prospective power calculation was not performed. Instead, the sample size reflects all eligible patients with available longitudinal CYFRA 21−1 measurements within the cohort during the study period. Serum was processed and stored within 2 hours of blood draw, according to the Early Detection Research Network’s Lung Clinical Validation Center standard operating protocol [11]. All patients were eventually categorized as having either benign or malignant nodules based on definitive diagnoses. Malignant nodules were confirmed by histopathology. Benign nodules were defined either by histopathologic confirmation of non-malignant tissue or by radiographic stability on serial CT imaging for at least 24 months, consistent with established pulmonary surveillance guidelines form the Fleischner Society and the American College of Chest Physicians [12].

These imaging data allowed classification of nodules as benign or malignant and supported the longitudinal evaluation of nodule behavior throughout the follow up period.

History of previous cancer refers to a prior diagnosis of any malignancy before enrollment in the study cohort, regardless of cancer type of treatment status.

CYFRA 21−1 measurement

Samples were obtained from the VUMC Thoracic Biorepository11 and accessed for research purposes between 01/07/2008–31/12/2018. Serum CYFRA 21–1 concentrations were measured using the Roche Elecsys Cobas e411 analyzer (electrochemiluminescence immunoassay), following the manufacturer’s protocol, with a College of American Pathologist (CAPP) certified laboratory. The CYFRA 21–1 assay demonstrated high analytical precision, with reported coefficients of variation typically ranging between approximately 1–2% for repeatability and below 5% for intermediate precision. The lower limit of detection for the assay is reported as <0.10 ng/mL. All samples were run concurrently, in a randomized order and in a blind fashion.

Statistical analysis

Demographic, clinical characteristics and biomarker were summarized overall and by group of interest. Continuous variables will be described using means and standard deviations or medians and interquartile ranges. Categorical variables will be summarized using frequencies and percentages. Linear mixed-effects models (LME) were used to analyze longitudinal trends in CYFRA 21−1 while accounting for repeated measures within individual patients. Time, diagnostic group, and their interaction were included as fixed effect with patient ID included as a random intercept to account for baseline differences between individuals. This allowed estimation of group-specific trends while accounting for repeated measures within individuals.

CYFRA 21−1 values were log-transformed prior to modeling, due to the right-skewed distribution of raw concentrations. The primary analysis was restricted to benign versus untreated malignant nodules to address the study’s diagnostic objective and to avoid confounding from treatment related biomarker changes. Measurementes obtained after treatment or surgical resection (“treated cancer”) were excluded from the primary models and analyzed separately as exploratory analyses to evaluate biomarker changes following intervention. removal.

Time was defined as the duration (in days) from each patient’s first CYFRA 21−1 measurement (baseline) to Each subsequent measurement. The LME model was fitted using maximum likelihood estimation. Type III ANOVA F-tests were used to assess the significance of fixed effects. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons of estimated marginal means were conducted using Wald test with emmeans package, with Tukey adjustment, and results were back transformed to the original scale with 95% confidence intervals.

To quantify the magnitude of longitudinal biomarker, change, individual slopes of log transformed CYFRA 21−1 values over time were estimated for each patient using simple linear regression models. The absolute value of these slopes was then calculated to represent the magnitude of change in CYFRA 21−1 levels over time, regardless of direction. These absolute slopes were subsequently compared across diagnostics groups using one-way ANOVA as an exploratory analysis.

To quantify the rate of biomarker changes over time, we estimated the slope of biomarker trajectory for each patient using simple linear regression. Specifically, the biomarker CYFRA 21−1 concentration was analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale to stabilize variance and approximate linear change over time. For each patient i, the following model was fitted:

Log (CYFRAit) = β0 +β1 x timeit + εit

where CYFRA𝑖𝑡 is the biomarker value at observation time 𝑡, and 𝛽1 represents the temporal rate of change in log(CYFRA). 𝜀𝑖𝑡 is an error term assumed to follow a normal distribution with mean 0 and variance 𝜎2. The estimated regression coefficient 𝛽^1 was taken as the slope describing the biomarker trajectory. To capture the magnitude of change regardless of direction (increase or decrease), the absolute value of the slope (i.e., 𝛽^1) was used in the analysis.

To improve clinical interpretability, we therefore conducted an exploratory diagnostic analysis. Specifically, we summarized each subject’s longitudinal biomarker profile using (1) the baseline log(CYFRA) and (2) the individual absolute slope of log(CYFRA) and (3) the individual absolute slope of log(CYFRA). Logistic regression was used to evaluate association between biomarker and disease group (benign vs untreated cancer). Discriminatory performance for distinguishing benign from untreated cancer was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was reported with 95% confidence intervals. Optimism-adjusted AUC with 95% bootstrap confidence interval using the.632 correction was also reported. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated using an exploratory cutoff defined by the Younden index.

All statistical analyses were performed in R (v4.5.1), with α = 0.05 as the significance threshold (two-tailed).

Ethical considerations

The study was conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Vanderbilt University Medical Center (protocol number IRB#030763). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants, and all methods were carried out in accordance with applicable institutional and regulatory guidelines.

Results

Cohort description

A total of 132pulmonary nodules were included in the Vanderbilt Thoracic Biorepository cohort. Among these, 91 patients had benign nodules and 41 had malignant nodules based on definitive diagnosis. For the primary analysis, patients who underwent treatment or surgery were excluded to avoid confounding due to treatment related biomarker changes. The resulting untreated cohort included 121 patients (91 benign and 30 malignant) (Table 1).

Table 1. Summary of Patients Characteristics.

Group
Characteristic N Overall
N = 1211
Benign
N = 911
Malignant
N = 301
p-value2
Age 121 0.505
Mean (SD) 63.5 (5.1) 63.2 (4.7) 64.3 (6.2)
Median (Q1, Q3) 62.6 (59.5, 67.1) 62.6 (59.5, 66.6) 62.9 (59.4, 68.2)
Sex 121 0.796
Male 75 (62.0%) 57 (62.6%) 18 (60.0%)
Female 46 (38.0%) 34 (37.4%) 12 (40.0%)
Race 121 0.758
Caucasian 115 (95.0%) 85 (93.4%) 30 (100.0%)
African American 4 (3.3%) 4 (4.4%) 0 (0.0%)
Asian 1 (0.8%) 1 (1.1%) 0 (0.0%)
Native American 1 (0.8%) 1 (1.1%) 0 (0.0%)
Smokers 121 0.248
Ever-smoker 120 (99.2%) 91 (100.0%) 29 (96.7%)
Never-smoker 1 (0.8%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (3.3%)
Pack Years 120 0.813
Mean (SD) 55.5 (25.8) 53.7 (23.7) 61.1 (31.4)
Median (Q1, Q3) 47.5 (40.0, 64.8) 47.0 (40.2, 62.0) 50.0 (42.0, 83.2)
History of previous cancer 121 41 (33.9%) 28 (30.8%) 13 (43.3%) 0.0207
Lung Nodule Location 3 112
RLL 21 (18.8%) 13 (15.9%) 8 (26.7%)
RUL 27 (24.4%) 20 (24.4%) 7 (23.3%)
LLL 19 (17.0%) 11 (13.4%) 8 (26.7%)
LUL 12(10.7%) 6 (7.3%) 6 (20.0%)
RML 6 (5.4%) 6 (7.3%) 0 (0.0%)
Right Hilum 1 (0.9%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (3.3%)
Left Hilum 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (2.4%)
Insignificant nodule or data entry error 26 (23.2%) 26 (31.7%) 0 (0.0%)
Histology diagnosis 119 <0.001
Adenocarcinoma 14 (11.8%) 0 (0.0%) 14 (46.7%)
Large Cell Neuroendocrine 2 (1.7%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (6.7%)
Negative for Malignant Cells 12 (10.1%) 12 (13.5%) 0 (0.0%)
No Diagnosis 2 (1.7%) 2 (2.2%) 0 (0.0%)
Non-Small Cell (NSCLC) 2 (1.7%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (6.7%)
Non-lung primary 1 (0.8%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (3.3%)
Normal 73 (61.3%) 73 (82.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Other – cancer 2 (1.7%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (6.7%)
Squamous Cell Carcinoma 9(7.6%) 0 (0.0%) 9 (30.0%)
Squamous Metaplasia 1 (0.8%) 1 (1.1%) 0 (0.0%)
Unsatisfactory 1 (0.8%) 1 (1.1%) 0 (0.0%)
Lung cancer history 121 6 (5.0%) 2 (2.2%) 4 (13.3%) 0.033

1n (%)

2Wilcoxon rank sum test; Pearson’s Chi-squared test; Fisher’s exact test

3Right Upper Lobe (RUL), Right Lower Lobe (RLL), Left Upper Lobe (LUL), Left Lower Lobe (LLL).

The two groups were similar in age, sex, race, smoking status, pack -years, and lung nodule location. However, history of previous cancer and prior lung cancer were more frequent among patients with malignant nodules. As expected, histological diagnosis differed significantly between groups.

An exploratory subgroup analysis included 16 malignant patients with biomarker measurements available both before and after surgical or therapeutical intervention (Table 2)

Table 2. Clinical, pathological and outcome characteristics of patients with confirmed malignancy and who underwent surgical resection.

Clinical Stage Pathological Stage Histology Location1 Metastasis Cancer History Survival Status Time to Event (months) (death, alive or last follow up
IIIA T2N2M0 Squamous cell carcinoma LLL No No Unknown 12
IIIA T2N2M0 Adenocarcinoma LLL Yes (CNS) No Deceased 15
IB T1N0M0 Squamous cell carcinoma LUL Yes (bone) No Deceased 77
IIA T1aN1M0 Adenocarcinoma RLL Yes (CNS) No Alive 104
IIA T1aN1M0 Adenocarcinoma LUL Yes (hilar) No Deceased 24
IB T2aN0M0 Squamous cell carcinoma RLL Yes (hilar) No Deceased 91
IA T1bN0M0 Neuroendocrine LLL No No Alive 77
IIIA T3N1M0 Adenocarcinoma RLL Unknown No Deceased 39
IB T1bN0M0 Adenocarcinoma LUL Unknown No Unknown 80
IIIA Squamous cell carcinoma Lymph node(4R) Yes (bone) Yes (colon) Deceased 38
IIB T3N0M0 Adenocarcinoma RLL No No Unknown 37
IIA T1bN0M0 Neuroendocrine RUL No No Alive 101
N/A N/A Metastatic adenocarcinoma LUL Yes Yes (Ampullar adenocarcinoma) Deceased 26
IIIB T4N3M0 Adenocarcinoma LLL Yes No Unknown 29
IIB T3N0M0 Squamous cell carcinoma RUL No No Unknown 4

1Right Upper Lobe (RUL), Right Lower Lobe (RLL), Left Upper Lobe (LUL), Left Lower Lobe (LLL).

None of the benign cases underwent surgical removal of the nodule during the study; these patients were followed with serial observations alone. By contrast, the malignant cases in the surgical subgroup had detailed staging information and contributed to the serial CYFFRA 21−1 measurements both before and after surgical resection of the tumor, providing internal “pre vs post” comparisons. Five of the cancer patients had only a single CYFRA 21−1 measurement (at the initial visit, with no follow-up sample, these were patients who, for example, were lost to follow-up or had immediate treatment elsewhere). The remaining cancer patients had multiple serial measurements in at least one phase (pre- or post-treatment). The median follow-up duration for biomarker measurements was approximately 6–12 months, with a median of 3 blood draws per patient (range 1–9, as some patients in the paired group had frequent follow-up draws). Notably, CYFRA 21−1 levels were generally low in benign patients across all time points, though one benign-case patient exhibited an outlier high value (peak CYFRA 11.3 ng/mL) despite ultimately having a benign diagnosis. This was an exceptional case; most benign nodules had CYFRA levels well below the typical diagnostic cut-off of 3.3 ng/mL.

Baseline characteristics and biomarker level

The two groups were similar with respect to age, sex, race, smoking status, pack years and lung nodule location (p < 0.05). Most patients were Caucasian, and the majority had a history of smoking. Nodule distribution across lung lobes was comparable between groups. However, the history of previous cancer and prior lung cancer was more frequent among patients with malignant nodules (p < 0.05) for both comparisons. Histological diagnosis differed significantly between groups, as expected (p < 0.001).

The baseline comparisons were restricted to untreated malignant cases to align with the primary diagnostic objective of the study.

Diagnostic performance of baseline CYFRA 21−1

The diagnostic performance of baseline CYFRA 21−1 for differentiation benign from malignant nodules was evaluated using logistic regression.

Baseline CYFRA 21−1 demonstrated modest discriminative ability, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.68 (95% CI 0.565-0.787). Using the optimal Youden index threshold, sensitivity was 0.633 and specificity was 0.714 (Table 3, Fig 1).

Table 3. Diagnostic performance of baseline CYFRA 21−1 and longitudinal metrics for distinguishing benign vs untreated malignant nodules.

AUC (95% CI)c Optimistic adjusted AUC (95% CI)d Youden cut off Sensitivity Specificity
Baseline log(CYFRA) a 0.68 (0.56, 0.79) 0.67 (0.58, 0.76) 0.811 0.633 0.714
Absolute slope of log(CYFRA) b 0.67 (0.48, 0.87) – 0.03 0.385 0.967

a. 91 Benign subjects, 30 cancer subjects.

b. 91 Benign Subjects, 13 cancer subjects, each with more than two nodules.

c. AUC with 95% confidence

d. Optimism-adjusted AUC with 95% bootstrap confidence interval using the.632 correction. Due to small sample size, optimism-adjusted AUC for absolute slope of log(CYFRA) was not applicable

***These findings should be interpreted in the context of the relatively small sample size

Fig 1. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve for baseline CYFRA 21−1 in the discrimination of benign versus untreated malignant pulmonary nodules.

Fig 1

The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.676 (95% CI: 0.565–0.787). The diagonal grey line represents the reference line of no discrimination. The optimal Youden index threshold yielded a sensitivity of 0.633 and a specificity of 0.714.

Longitudinal changes in CYFRA 21−1 levels (mixed effect model)

Longitudinal CYFRA 21–1 measurements were observed from 91 subjects with benign nodules and 30 with untreated cancer (Fig 2A). Changes in CYFRA 21–1 over time were evaluated using a linear mixed effect model (LME) including time and malignancy status as fixed effects and patient level random intercepts. Across the untreated cohort (121 subjects, contributing 397 measurements), malignant nodules were associated with significantly higher overall CYFRA 21–1 levels compared with benign nodules (p < 0.001). On average, patients with untreated malignancy nodules had higher CYFRA 21–1 levels (2.67 ng/mL CI 2.16-3.29) than those with benign nodules (1.87 ng/mL, 95% CI 1.71-2.05). However, the interaction between time and malignancy status was not statistically significant (p = 0.21) suggesting that longitudinal trends over time were similar between groups (Fig 2B).

Fig 2. Longitudinal CYFRA 21−1 dynamics in patients with benign (blue) and untreated malignant (red) pulmonary nodules.

Fig 2

(A) Individual spaghetti plot showing serial CYFRA 21−1 measurements over time (months) for each participant. Solid blue lines represent benign cases; dashed red lines represent malignant cases. (B) Linear mixed-effects model–estimated group trajectories with 95% confidence bands, demonstrating higher overall CYFRA 21−1 levels in malignant nodules (mean 2.67 ng/mL) compared with benign nodules (mean 1.87 ng/mL), without a significant time-by-group interaction (p = 0.21). (C) Distribution of individual patient slopes of log(CYFRA 21−1) per month, by diagnostic group. No significant difference was observed between groups (p = 0.35; AUC 0.47). (D) Distribution of the absolute value of individual slopes of log(CYFRA 21−1) per month, by diagnostic group. Absolute slopes were numerically higher in malignant nodules, though the difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.16; AUC 0.60, 95% CI 0.48–0.87).

Individual slope analysis

To evaluate subject specific biomarker dynamics, slopes of CYFRA 21−1 (Fig 2C) were estimated for patients with sufficient longitudinal measurements prior to treatment. This analysis included 104 subjects (91 benign and 13 malignant). The estimated slope of CYFRA 21−1 over time did not significantly differentiate benign from malignant nodules (p = 0.35). Discriminatory performance was limited to AUC 0.47.

Absolute slope analysis

To better capture variability in biomarker dynamics, the absolute slope of CYFRA 21−1 (Fig. 2D) was analyzed. However, absolute slope was higher in malignant nodules compared to benign nodules: however, this difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.16), with an AUC of 0.60 (95% CI 0.48−.87).

Discussion

In this study, we evaluated the longitudinal behavior of the serum biomarker CYFRA 21−1 in patients with pulmonary nodules, focusing on comparison between benign and untreated malignant nodules as the primary diagnostic analysis, while separately assessing post-treatment changes as an exploratory analysis. To our knowledge, this represents one of the few studies specifically examining within-patient CYFRA trajectories over time in this clinical context.

Our findings demonstrate that patients with malignant nodules exhibit higher CYFRA 21−1 levels compared with those with benign nodules, both at baseline and across longitudinal measurements, This observation is consistent with prior literature supporting the diagnostic role of CYFRA 21−1 in lung cancer [1–5]. However, despite these differences in absolute levels, we did not observe statistically significant differences in longitudinal trajectories between benign and malignant nodules, as reflected by the non-significant time by group interaction and slope-based analyses. These findings suggest that, within the limitations of this cohort, CYFRA 21−1 differs between groups primarily in magnitude rather than in the rate of change over time. The lack of significant differences in slope-based analyses may be explained by several factors. First the number of malignant cases with sufficient longitudinal measurements prior to treatment was limited, reducing statistical power. Second, many malignant cases underwent early intervention, thereby truncating the natural history of untreated tumor related biomarker dynamics. Additionally, heterogeneity in tumor biology and treatment approaches may have contributed to variability in longitudinal patterns.

The exploratory analysis of patients with pre- and post-treatment measurements (n = 16) demonstrated a general trend toward lower CYFRA 21−1 levels following intervention. Median CYFRA 21−1 levels decreased from 2.64 ng/mL preoperatively to 1.94 ng/mL postoperatively. However, substantial interindividual variability was observed, with some patients showing minimal change or slight increases following treatment. These findings are consistent with prior studies demonstrating that CYFRA 21−1 reflects tumor burden and may decrease following treatment [6,7], although they should be interpreted cautiously given the small sample size (Fig 3).

Fig 3. Individual CYFRA 21−1 trajectories for each malignant patient in the exploratory pre- and post-treatment subgroup (n = 16).

Fig 3

Each panel displays serial CYFRA 21−1 measurements (ng/mL, y-axis) over time in months (x-axis) for a single patient identified by study ID. Dashed red lines connect longitudinal measurements. Annotations indicate the timing of surgery (S, purple) or other therapeutic intervention (T, green) relative to sample collection. Substantial interindividual variability was observed; overall, a trend toward lower CYFRA 21−1 levels was noted following intervention, consistent with reduction in tumor burden.

The concept of longitudinal biomarker assessment has been well established in other malignancies, such as prostate cancer, where PSA velocity and doubling time provide clinically meaningful information beyond single measurements [9]. While a similar framework may be appliable to CYFRA 21−1, our findings suggest that, in this dataset, longitudinal changes alone may not provide sufficient discriminatory value to differentiate benign from malignant nodules.

Importantly, overlap in CYFRA 21−1 levels between benign and malignant nodules was observed, highlighting a known limitation of single biomarker measurements. Elevated CYFRA 21−1 levels in benign cases may reflect underlying inflammatory or epithelial conditions, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or interstitial lung disease [8], although these factors were not systematically assessed in this cohort.

Recent studies have suggested that incorporating biomarker trajectories may improve early detection of lung cancer [10]. However, in our study, trajectory – based metrics such as slope and absolute slope showed limited discriminatory performance, indicating that longitudinal patterns alone may not be sufficient without integration of additional clinical or imaging data.

Several limitations of our study should be acknowledged. The sample size, especially for the malignant cases with longitudinal data, was limited, affecting statistical power and the stability of slope-based estimates. The follow up duration was relatively short, and measurement frequencies varied between patients. Additionally, some benign nodules were classified based on imaging follow-up rather than histopathology, introducing potential misclassification. Finally, potential confounders such as comorbidities, tumor subtype, and renal function were not accounted for.

Despite these limitations, this study provides clinically relevant insights into the longitudinal behavior of CYFRA 21−1. While absolute CYFRA 21−1 levels remain useful for distinguishing malignant from benign nodules, longitudinal trajectories alone may have limited added diagnostic value in this setting. Future prospective studies with larger cohorts and integrated biomarker models are needed to further define the role of serial CYFRA 21−1 measurements in clinical practice.

Conclusions

In summary, this longitudinal pilot study highlights that while CYFRA 21−1 has long been recognized as a lung cancer biomarker, its behavior over time provides additional insights into tis clinical utility CYFRA 21−1 levels were consistently higher in malignant nodules compared with benign nodules, supporting its role as a diagnostic biomarker. However, longitudinal changes over time, including slope-based analyses, did not significantly differentiate benign from malignant nodules in this cohort. Exploratory analyses suggested a decrease in CYFRA 21−1 levels following treatment in a subset of patients, although these findings were variable and limited by small sample size. Overall, these findings indicate that while absolute CYFRA 21−1 levels may aid in distinguishing malignant from benign nodules, longitudinal patterns alone may have limited discriminatory value in this setting.

Larger prospective studies are needed to further evaluate the potential role of serial CYFRA 21−1 measurements in lung nodule assessment and clinical decision making.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the clinical staff at Vanderbilt University Medical Center for their support in collecting and managing patient data. We also acknowledge the contributions of our biostatistical colleagues for their assistance with data analysis. Some sections of this manuscript were edited for grammar and style using AI-based language assistance tools.

Data Availability

The data underlying this study are not publicity available due to ethical and institutional restrictions. Data are available upon reasonable request from the Vanderbilt University Medical Center Thoracic Biorepository, subject to Vanderbilt Medical Center Instituional Review Board (IRB) for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. Request may be submitted via the VUMC IRB website: https://www.vumc.org/irb.

Funding Statement

This study was supported by NIH National Cancer Institute grants (1RO1CA253923 to Fabien Maldonado and UO1CA152662 to Eric L. Grogan). We also confirm that the funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation to the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Rowe DJ, Khalil TA, Kammer MN, Godfrey CM, Zou Y, Vnencak-Jones CL, et al. A deeper evaluation of cytokeratin fragment 21-1 as a lung cancer tumor marker and comparison of different assays. Biosens Bioelectron X. 2025;23:100593. doi: 10.1016/j.biosx.2025.100593 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Paez R, Kammer MN, Tanner NT, Shojaee S, Heideman BE, Peikert T, et al. Update on Biomarkers for the Stratification of Indeterminate Pulmonary Nodules. Chest. Elsevier Inc.; 2023. pp. 1028–41. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2023.05.025 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Marmor HN, Jackson L, Gawel S, Kammer M, Massion PP, Grogan EL, et al. Improving malignancy risk prediction of indeterminate pulmonary nodules with imaging features and biomarkers. Clin Chim Acta. 2022;534:106–14. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2022.07.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Ajona D, Remirez A, Sainz C, Bertolo C, Gonzalez A, Varo N, et al. A model based on the quantification of complement C4c, CYFRA 21-1 and CRP exhibits high specificity for the early diagnosis of lung cancer. Transl Res. 2021;233:77–91. doi: 10.1016/j.trsl.2021.02.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Kammer MN, Lakhani DA, Balar AB, Antic SL, Kussrow AK, Webster RL, et al. Integrated Biomarkers for the Management of Indeterminate Pulmonary Nodules. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2021;204(11):1306–16. doi: 10.1164/rccm.202012-4438OC [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Dal Bello MG, Filiberti RA, Alama A, Orengo AM, Mussap M, Coco S, et al. The role of CEA, CYFRA21-1 and NSE in monitoring tumor response to Nivolumab in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. J Transl Med. 2019;17(1):74. doi: 10.1186/s12967-019-1828-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.He Y, Cui Y, Chang D, Wang T. Postoperative CYFRA 21-1 and CEA as prognostic factors in patients with stage I pulmonary adenocarcinoma. Oncotarget. 2017;73115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Xu RH, Liao CZ, Luo Y, Xu WL, Li K, Chen JX, et al. Optimal cut-off values for CYFRA 21-1 expression in NSCLC patients depend on the presence of benign pulmonary diseases. Clin Chim Acta. 2015;440:188–92. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2014.09.033 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Vickers AJ, Wolters T, Savage CJ, Cronin AM, O’Brien MF, Pettersson K, et al. Prostate-specific antigen velocity for early detection of prostate cancer: result from a large, representative, population-based cohort. Eur Urol. 2009;56(5):753–60. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.07.047 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Irajizad E, Fahrmann JF, Toumazis I, Vykoukal J, Dennison JB, Shen Y. Biomarker trajectory for earlier detection of lung cancer. 2024. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 11.Kammer MN, Deppen SA, Antic S, Jamshedur Rahman SM, Eisenberg R, Maldonado F, et al. The impact of the lung EDRN-CVC on Phase 1, 2, & 3 biomarker validation studies. Cancer Biomark. 2022;33(4):449–65. doi: 10.3233/CBM-210382 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.MacMahon H, Austin JHM, Gamsu G, Herold CJ, Jett JR, Naidich DP, et al. Guidelines for management of small pulmonary nodules detected on CT scans: A statement from the Fleischner Society. Radiology. 2005. pp. 395–400. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2372041887 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Fumihiro Yamaguchi

23 Feb 2026

-->PONE-D-26-01020-->-->Longitudinal Analysis of CYFRA 21-1 Levels in Patients with Pulmonary Nodules: Differential Trajectories Between Benign and Malignant Cases and Impact of Tumor Resection-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. Forero,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 09 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

  • A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Fumihiro Yamaguchi

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please note that PLOS One has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“NIH National Cancer Institute Grants: 1R01CA253923 to Fabien Maldonado

U01CA152662 to Eric L. Grogan”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Please note that funding information should not appear in any section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript.

5. In the online submission form, you indicated that your data is available only on request from a third party. Please note that your Data Availability Statement is currently contact details for the third party, such as an email address or a link to where data requests can be made. Please update your statement with the missing information.

6. In the online submission form you indicate that your data is not available for proprietary reasons and have provided a contact point for accessing this data. Please note that your current contact point is a co-author on this manuscript. According to our Data Policy, the contact point must not be an author on the manuscript and must be an institutional contact, ideally not an individual. Please revise your data statement to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, and send this to us via return email. Please also include contact information for the third party organization, and please include the full citation of where the data can be found.

7. Please upload a new copy of Figures 1 and 2 as the detail is not clear. Please follow the link for more information:  https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

8. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Additional Editor Comments:

The reviewers have recommended publication, but also suggest significant revisions to your manuscript.  Therefore, I invite you to respond to the reviewers' comments and revise your manuscript.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: No

**********

-->2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

-->3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

-->4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: This manuscript addresses an important and clinically relevant question by shifting the focus from a single CYFRA 21-1 value to its longitudinal trajectory in patients evaluated for pulmonary nodules. The attempt to quantify temporal patterns using longitudinal modeling is meaningful and has potential to inform how tumor markers might be interpreted for nodule assessment and follow-up.

Major comments

1. If the primary aim is to differentiate benign from malignant nodules, the treated cancer group reflects a different clinical question (treatment-response monitoring) and may confound interpretation. Please present the main analysis using benign vs untreated cancer only.

2. Please specify the follow-up duration and criteria used to classify nodules as benign based on imaging surveillance. Because benign classification based solely on follow-up cannot fully exclude malignancy, please explicitly discuss the risk of misclassification as a study limitation.

3. The current conclusions rely on qualitative impressions of “mild vs steep” changes, which limits clinical interpretability. Please report diagnostic performance for benign vs untreated cancer, such as ROC-AUC and sensitivity/specificity using an exploratory cutoff.

4. The figures are not visible or are too unclear to interpret. Please ensure all figures are submitted with adequate format and resolution.

Reviewer #2: Dear authors,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS One. I appreciate the opportunity to review it. The paper, “Longitudinal Analysis of CYFRA 21-1 Levels in Patients with Pulmonary Nodules: Differential Trajectories Between Benign and Malignant Cases and Impact of Tumor Resection”, which was a single-center, prospective collection with retrospective blinded evaluation study analyzed serum samples from a cohort of patients with pulmonary nodules. I think the manuscript would be worthy for publication of the journal after the major revision mentioned below.

1. The rationale for the sample size is unclear. The author should clarify the statistical power for 132 patients in this study.

2. The definition of “absolute slope of log-transformed CYFRA values” is unclear (Page13, Line262). A clearer explanation is needed as to why this value was used for statistical analysis.

3. The authors described “If a patient’s CYFRA remains high or rebounds after surgery, it could signal residual disease or early recurrence” (Page16, Line330). With only 16 surgical cases, this statement is an exaggeration.

4. In the Limitations section, the author should describe the potential for selection bias in the surgical cases. Furthermore, it should be noted that the lack of standardization in clinical staging poses a clinical issue.

5. In the Limitations section, the impact of the storage period of biorepository samples on measurement results should be described.

6. In the Conclusions section, “CYFRA 2101 velocity or doubling time could enhance lung nodule risk stratification” (Page19, Line 415), I think this sentence is too much because the sample size of the data in this study was small. The author should make more cautious assertions.

7. The resolution of Figure 1 is too low to be clearly discernible. It should be replaced with a figure that readers can understand.

I hope my review would help the authors to improve the manuscript. Thank you again for your submission.

Best wishes,

Reviewer #3: This paper investigates the longitudinal dynamics of serum CYFRA 21-1 levels in patients with pulmonary nodules, comparing biomarker trajectories between benign and malignant cases. Using repeated measurements and linear mixed-effects modeling, the study demonstrates that malignant nodules exhibit distinct temporal patterns and greater variability than benign lesions, with trends suggesting biomarker decline following tumor resection. The authors propose that serial CYFRA 21-1 monitoring may provide additional diagnostic value beyond single time-point measurements, although further validation in larger cohorts is required.

Contrary to the original intention, the actual study results do not sufficiently support the investigators’ key proposal or hypothesis, and the findings lack detailed explanation and in-depth interpretation. In particular, the low quality of the figures makes it difficult to accurately interpret and assess the underlying data.

Introduction

- It appears that previous studies addressing longitudinal follow-up of biomarkers—both in comparisons between cancer and benign cases and in pre- versus post-surgical settings—have not been sufficiently reviewed in the manuscript.

Methods

Study Cohort

- Line 126-129 & line 207-208: The authors state that benign cases were confirmed through “long-term imaging follow-up,” yet the description lacks sufficient detail. The manuscript should clearly specify the enrollment criteria, including the exact duration of follow-up required to define benignity. In addition, the study should present detailed information on how these patients’ data were structured and documented throughout the follow-up period.

- Line 130-135: Given that the study’s conclusions rely on longitudinal changes and slope differences in CYFRA 21-1 levels, detailed analytical validation of the assay is essential. Information regarding functional sensitivity (CV20), limit of detection, intra- and inter-assay coefficients of variation, and quality control procedures should be provided to ensure that observed biomarker fluctuations exceed analytical variability.

Results

- Most results are suggestive but preliminary, and the evidence remains insufficient to establish longitudinal CYFRA 21-1 as a reliable diagnostic tool without external validation

- Line 177 & Table 1: ‘history of previous cancer’ was not fully explained and more detailed should be added in the manuscript

- Line 190-192, 207-208: The statement, “Benign nodules included 73 normal tissue samples,” may inadvertently imply that benign status was confirmed surgically, which could mislead readers into assuming postoperative histopathologic confirmation. This wording should be revised for clarity. Based on the study description, it appears that most benign nodules were diagnosed through imaging follow-up (e.g., serial CT surveillance) rather than surgical resection or biopsy confirmation, and this distinction should be explicitly stated in the manuscript.

- Line 222~224: Specific data supporting this statement were not provided. It is unclear whether the data presented in lines 226–229 correspond to this point, and clarification from the authors would be necessary.

- Line 235~238: Contrary to the authors’ strong assertions in the manuscript, the differences observed between pre- and post-surgical measurements do not appear to be substantial. Moreover, the Discussion section does not provide sufficient explanation or interpretation of this finding.

Discussion

- Line 348~354: Details regarding “concomitant inflammatory lung conditions” should be provided on a patient-by-patient basis (or at least in a clearly defined subgroup analysis), including the specific diagnoses and clinical context. As written, the manuscript repeatedly attributes CYFRA increases to presumed inflammation, but offers no supporting clinical data or detailed explanation for why CYFRA truly rose in these cases, relying largely on speculation throughout.

- Line 395-400: The results of this study do not sufficiently support this statement and appear to be based largely on speculation rather than robust evidence.

**********

-->6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?   For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

PLoS One. 2026 Jun 23;21(6):e0341522. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0341522.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


13 Apr 2026

RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS: MANUSCRIPT ID: PONE-D-26-01020

We sincerely thank the editor and reviewers for their careful evaluation of our manuscript and for their insightful and constructive comments. We have carefully addressed all suggestions and believe that the revision has significantly improved the clarity, rigor and overall quality of the manuscript.

All changes in the manuscript have been clearly indicated and are referenced with corresponding page in line number.

Reviewer 1

1. If the primary aim is to differentiate benign from malignant nodules, the treated cancer group reflects a different clinical question (treatment-response monitoring) and may confound interpretation. Please present the main analysis using benign vs untreated cancer only.

We agree that inclusion of treated cancer cases may confound the primary diagnostic objective of distinguishing benign from malignant nodules. In response, we have revised the manuscript to clearly restrict the primary analysis to benign versus untreated malignant nodules, while analyses involving treated cancer cases are now explicitly presented as exploratory:

Specifically:

• The Methods section has been updated to define the primary comparison as benign versus untreated cancer.

• The results section now clearly describes the untreated cohort used for the main analyses.

• All primary statistical models (baseline comparison, mixed-effects models and diagnostic performance analyses) were conducted withing the untreated cohort.

• Analyses involving post treatment measurements are now presented separately as exploratory.

2. Please specify the follow-up duration and criteria used to classify nodules as benign based on imaging surveillance. Because benign classification based solely on follow-up cannot fully exclude malignancy, please explicitly discuss the risk of misclassification as a study limitation.

We explained the criteria used to define benign nodules in:

• Methods section: stating that benign nodules were defined either by histopathologic confirmation or by radiographic stability on serial CT imaging for at least 24 months, consistent with established pulmonary nodule surveillance guidelines.

• Discussion: we explicitly acknowledge the potential for misclassification when benign status is determined based on imaging follow up rather than histopathology.

3. The current conclusions rely on qualitative impressions of “mild vs steep” changes, which limits clinical interpretability. Please report diagnostic performance for benign vs untreated cancer, such as ROC-AUC and sensitivity/specificity using an exploratory cutoff.

We agree that reporting quantitative diagnostic performance metrics improves clinical interpretability. In response, we have expanded the:

• Results: we include ROC-AUC, sensitivity and specificity for the primary diagnostic comparison between benign and untreated malignant. Specifically, baseline CYFRA 21-1 demonstrated an AUC of 0.676 (95% CI 0.565-0.787), with sensitivity of 0.633 and specificity of 0.714 using an exploratory cutoff determined by the Younden index.

• Methods: we clarify in this section that ROC analyses were performed, and that sensitivity and specificity were calculated using a data driven cutoff (Younden index)

To improve clinical interpretability, we therefore conducted an exploratory diagnostic analysis. Specifically, we summarized each subject’s longitudinal biomarker profile using (1) the baseline Log(CYFRA) and (2) the individual slope of log(CYFRA). We then evaluated their ability to discriminate benign from untreated cancer usin ROC analysis. The area under the curve (AUC) with 95% confidence intervals

AUC (95% CI)c Optimistic adjusted AUC (95% CI)d Younden cut off Sensitivity Specificity

Baseline log(CYFRA)a 0.68 (0.56, 0.79) 0.67 (0.58, 0.76) 0.811 0.633 0.714

Absolute slope of log(CYFRA)b 0.67 (0.48, 0.87) - 0.03 0.385 0.96.7

a: 91 benign subjects, 30 cancer subjects.

b: 91 benign subjects, 13 cancer subjects, each with more than two nodules.

c: AUC with 95% confidence

d: Optimism-adjusted AUC with 95% bootstrap confidence interval using the .632 correction. Due to small sample size, optimism-adjusted AUC for absolute slope of log(CYFRA) was not applicable

4. The figures are not visible or are too unclear to interpret. Please ensure all figures are submitted with adequate format and resolution.

All figures have been regenerated with improved resolution and clarity. Figure legends have been revised to enhance interpretability.

Reviewer 2

1. The rationale for the sample size is unclear. The author should clarify the statistical power for 132 patients in this study.

This study represents an exploratory analysis based on a biorepository cohort. Therefore, no formal a prior sample size or power calculation was performed. Instead, we included all eligible patients with available longitudinal CYFRA 21-1 measurements during the study period, resulting in a total sample size of 132 patients.

We clarified this point

• Methods: we clarified and explicitly stated that the analysis in exploratory and hypothesis generating rather than powered for definitive inference.

2. The definition of “absolute slope of log-transformed CYFRA values” is unclear (Page13, Line262). A clearer explanation is needed as to why this value was used for statistical analysis.

To quantify the rate of biomarker, change over time, we estimated the slope of the biomarker trajectory for each patient using simple linear regression. Specifically, the biomarker CYFRA concentration was analyzed on the natural logarithmic scale to stabilize variance and approximate linear change over time. For each patient i, the following model was fitted:

Log (CYFRAit) = β0 + β1 x timeit + εit’

where CYFRA𝑖𝑡 is the biomarker value at observation time 𝑡, and 𝛽1represents the temporal rate of change in log(CYFRA). 𝜀𝑖𝑡 is an error term assumed to follow a normal distribution with mean 0 and variance 𝜎2. The estimated regression coefficient 𝛽^1 was taken as the slope describing the biomarker trajectory.To capture the magnitude of change regardless of direction (increase or decrease), the absolute value of the slope (i.e., |𝛽^1|) was used in the analysis.

We clarify this point in the Methods section.

3. The authors described “If a patient’s CYFRA remains high or rebounds after surgery, it could signal residual disease or early recurrence” (Page16, Line330). With only 16 surgical cases, this statement is an exaggeration.

In response, we have revised both the Results and Discussion sections to clearly describe these findings as exploratory and descriptive, rather than definitive.

Specifically:

• Results: The post treatment analysis was labeled as exploratory, language suggesting causal or definitive effects has been removed and emphasize the observed variability across patients.

• Discussion: this section has been revised to clarify that these results cannot establish a definitive relationship between tumor resection and biomarker dynamics.

These changes align the interpretation with the limitations of the data and address the reviewer’s concern.

4. In the Limitations section, the author should describe the potential for selection bias in the surgical cases. Furthermore, it should be noted that the lack of standardization in clinical staging poses a clinical issue.

We have expanded the Discussion section to explain these issues, specifically:

• We know that the surgical subgroup may be subject to selection bias, as patients undergoing resection likely represent a subset with operable disease and may not be representative of the broader population of patients with pulmonary nodules.

• We also acknowledge that clinical staging was not standardized across all cases due to the retrospective nature of the study, which may introduce additional heterogeneity in the interpretation of results.

5. In the Limitations section, the impact of the storage period of biorepository samples on measurement results should be described.

• Discussion we have added this item as study limitation. Specifically, we now state that although samples were processed using standardized biorepository protocols, variability in storage duration may have influenced measured CYFRA 21- levels.

• Methods: we also retained the description of standardized sample handling procedures to provide context regarding pre-analytical quality control.

6. In the Conclusions section, “CYFRA 2101 velocity or doubling time could enhance lung nodule risk stratification” (Page19, Line 415), I think this sentence is too much because the sample size of the data in this study was small. The author should make more cautious assertions.

We have revised the section to avoid overinterpretation of the findings, particularly regarding post treatment biomarker changes. Specifically:

• Conclusion: we now emphasize that the clinical utility of longitudinal CYFRA 21-1 trajectories remains uncertain. We state also that further validation in larger prospective cohorts is required before clinical implementation.

7. The resolution of Figure 1 is too low to be clearly discernible. It should be replaced with a figure that readers can understand.

All figures have been regenerated with improved resolution and clarity. Figure legends have been revised to enhance interpretability.

Reviewer 3

Introduction

1. It appears that previous studies addressing longitudinal follow-up of biomarkers—both in comparisons between cancer and benign cases and in pre- versus post-surgical settings—have not been sufficiently reviewed in the manuscript.

We have revised the introduction to include a brief discussion of prior studies that have evaluated longitudinal changes in CYFRA 21-1, particularly in the context of treatment response and disease progression. We also clarify that most prior work has focused on treated populations, highlighting the gap addressed by our study, which focuses on untreated pulmonary nodules.

Methods

Study Cohort

2. Line 126-129 & line 207-208: The authors state that benign cases were confirmed through “long-term imaging follow-up,” yet the description lacks sufficient detail. The manuscript should clearly specify the enrollment criteria, including the exact duration of follow-up required to define benignity. In addition, the study should present detailed information on how these patients’ data were structured and documented throughout the follow-up period.

We have clarified the criteria specifically, benign nodules were defined either by histopathologic confirmation or by radiographic stability on serial CT imaging for a minimum follow up period of 24 months, consistent with established guidelines.

3. Line 130-135: Given that the study’s conclusions rely on longitudinal changes and slope differences in CYFRA 21-1 levels, detailed analytical validation of the assay is essential. Information regarding functional sensitivity (CV20), limit of detection, intra- and inter-assay coefficients of variation, and quality control procedures should be provided to ensure that observed biomarker fluctuations exceed analytical variability. Results - Most results are suggestive but preliminary, and the evidence remains insufficient to establish longitudinal CYFRA 21-1 as a reliable diagnostic tool without external validation

In response, we have revised the Discussion and Conclusion sections to adopt a more cautious tone, emphasizing the exploratory nature of the analysis, the limited sample size and the need for validation in larger prospective cohorts before clinical applications. We also included information regarding functional sensitivity (CV20) and quality control procedures for the biomarker CYFRA 21-1.

4. Line 177 & Table 1: ‘history of previous cancer’ was not fully explained and more detailed should be added in the manuscript

We added a definition in the Methods section specifying that this variable refers to a prior diagnosis of any malignancy before enrollment in the study cohort, regardless of cancer type of treatment status.

5. Line 190-192, 207-208: The statement, “Benign nodules included 73 normal tissue samples,” may inadvertently imply that benign status was confirmed surgically, which could mislead readers into assuming postoperative histopathologic confirmation. This wording should be revised for clarity. Based on the study description, it appears that most benign nodules were diagnosed through imaging follow-up (e.g., serial CT surveillance) rather than surgical resection or biopsy confirmation, and this distinction should be explicitly stated in the manuscript.

We have revised the Results section to clarify that benign nodules were classified based on either histopathologic confirmation or radiographic stability on longitudinal imaging follow up, with the majority of cases defined using imaging criteria rather than surgical confirmation. In addition, we ensure consistency in reporting cohort numbers following exclusion of treated cases in the primary analysis.

6. Line 222~224: Specific data supporting this statement were not provided. It is unclear whether the data presented in lines 226–229 correspond to this point, and clarification from the authors would be necessary.

We agree that clearer linkage between statements in the Results section and the supporting data is important. In response, we have revised the Results section to explicitly reference the corresponding table (Table 1 and Table 2) to ensure that all statements are directly supported by the presented data. In addition, we included specific numerical results (p values, AUC, sensitivity, specificity) and direct references to the relevant figures Table 3 and Figure 1).

7. Line 235~238: Contrary to the authors’ strong assertions in the manuscript, the differences observed between pre- and post-surgical measurements do not appear to be substantial. Moreover, the Discussion section does not provide sufficient explanation or interpretation of this finding.

We have avoided overinterpretation of these findings. The pre-post analysis is now clearly presented as exploratory, and the language has been softened to emphasize variability across patients and the limited sample size. We also clarified that these results are descriptive and do not establish a definitive relationship between tumor resection and biomarker dynamics.

We also revised the Discussion section to better contextualize these findings and explicitly acknowledge their limitations.

Discussion

8. Line 348~354: Details regarding “concomitant inflammatory lung conditions” should be provided on a patient-by-patient basis (or at least in a clearly defined subgroup analysis), including the specific diagnoses and clinical context. As written, the manuscript repeatedly attributes CYFRA increases to presumed inflammation, but offers no supporting clinical data or detailed explanation for why CYFRA truly rose in these cases, relying largely on speculation throughout.

The Discussion and Conclusion sections we avoided speculative interpretation and to better reflect the exploratory nature of these findings. We no longer attribute CYFRA elevations to specific inflammatory conditions and instead present these observations more cautiously, emphasizing that potential explanations remain speculative due to the lack of detailed clinical data.

9. Line 395-400: The results of this study do not sufficiently support this statement and appear to be based largely on speculation rather than robust evidence.

We have softened the language throughout and avoided definitive or causal statements, emphasizing the limited sample size, lack of statistical significance in some analyses and the need for external validations.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers Plos One.docx

pone.0341522.s002.docx (27.1KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Fumihiro Yamaguchi, Fumihiro Yamaguchi

14 May 2026

Longitudinal Analysis of CYFRA 21-1 levels in patients with pulmonary nodules: differential trajectories between benign and malignant cases.

PONE-D-26-01020R1

Dear Dr. Forero,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Fumihiro Yamaguchi

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.-->

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

-->2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

-->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

-->4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

-->5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

-->6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

-->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?   For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Fumihiro Yamaguchi, Fumihiro Yamaguchi

PONE-D-26-01020R1

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Forero,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Fumihiro Yamaguchi

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers Plos One.docx

    pone.0341522.s002.docx (27.1KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    The data underlying this study are not publicity available due to ethical and institutional restrictions. Data are available upon reasonable request from the Vanderbilt University Medical Center Thoracic Biorepository, subject to Vanderbilt Medical Center Instituional Review Board (IRB) for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. Request may be submitted via the VUMC IRB website: https://www.vumc.org/irb.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES