The 14-protein lung cancer signature: questions of prediction, specificity, and causality
- 1Centre for Immuno-Oncology
Abstract
Plasma protein signatures may predict future disease but prediction does not necessarily imply disease-specific biology or causation. Distinguishing these possibilities is essential when a circulating signature is proposed as a marker of a pre-malignant state or as a basis for preventive treatment. Pandya et al. propose that a 14-protein plasma signature predicts incident lung cancer, identifies individuals who benefit from interleukin-1{beta} blockade for lung cancer prevention, and reflects a causal, interceptable pre-malignant state. We show that two of these claims are more parsimoniously explained by cumulative smoking exposure than by lung-cancer-specific biology. The signatures incremental discrimination over established clinical risk factors is small, and its associations extend across a broad range of smoking-related and cardiovascular conditions rather than concentrating in the lung. Consistent with this, two-sample Mendelian randomisation provides no evidence that any of the 14 proteins causally influence lung cancer, whereas smoking causally raises circulating levels of seven of them. The claim of predictive therapeutic utility is similarly unsupported. A re-analysis of the CANTOS trial shows no significant treatment-by-signature interaction, providing no evidence that the signature identifies patients who benefit differentially from canakinumab. Taken together, the available human data establish neither a lung-specific, causal pre-malignant mechanism nor a validated basis for treatment selection.
Related
- Inhibition of heat shock protein 90 in the mouse spinal cord enhances opioid antinociception via the upregulation of dual specificity protein phosphatase 15 (DUSP15) in CGRP neurons
- A Short N-Proximal Region in the Large Envelope Protein Harbors a Determinant That Contributes to the Species Specificity of Human Hepatitis B Virus
- The Salivary Healing Signature: From Disease Detection to Prediction and Monitoring of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Tissue Healing
- A novel CAF-related gene signature for prognostic and immunotherapy response prediction in PDAC based on single-cell RNA-seq and bulk RNA-seq data
- Comprehensive proteomic characterization of the esophageal String Test identifies a luminal protein signature associated with eosinophilic esophagitis.
BibTeX
@misc{sud202614protein,
title = {{The 14-protein lung cancer signature: questions of prediction, specificity, and causality}},
author = {A. Sud and R. Houlston},
howpublished = {medRxiv},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.64898/2026.09.08.26362484},
url = {https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.08.26362484v1},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - The 14-protein lung cancer signature: questions of prediction, specificity, and causality
AU - A. Sud
AU - R. Houlston
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/08
PB - medRxiv
DO - 10.64898/2026.09.08.26362484
UR - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.08.26362484v1
AB - Plasma protein signatures may predict future disease but prediction does not necessarily imply disease-specific biology or causation. Distinguishing these possibilities is essential when a circulating signature is proposed as a marker of a pre-malignant state or as a basis for preventive treatment. Pandya et al. propose that a 14-protein plasma signature predicts incident lung cancer, identifies individuals who benefit from interleukin-1{beta} blockade for lung cancer prevention, and reflects a causal, interceptable pre-malignant state. We show that two of these claims are more parsimoniously explained by cumulative smoking exposure than by lung-cancer-specific biology. The signatures incremental discrimination over established clinical risk factors is small, and its associations extend across a broad range of smoking-related and cardiovascular conditions rather than concentrating in the lung. Consistent with this, two-sample Mendelian randomisation provides no evidence that any of the 14 proteins causally influence lung cancer, whereas smoking causally raises circulating levels of seven of them. The claim of predictive therapeutic utility is similarly unsupported. A re-analysis of the CANTOS trial shows no significant treatment-by-signature interaction, providing no evidence that the signature identifies patients who benefit differentially from canakinumab. Taken together, the available human data establish neither a lung-specific, causal pre-malignant mechanism nor a validated basis for treatment selection.
ER -