Tumor Biology最新文献

Background: Lung cancer is a major burden to global health and is still among the most frequent and most lethal malignant diseases. Macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) is a proinflammatory cytokine involved in a variety of processes including tumorigenesis, formation of a tumor microenvironment and metastasis. It is therefore a potential prognostic biomarker in malignant diseases.

Objective: In this study, we investigated the applicability of MIF in serum samples as a biomarker in lung cancer.

Methods: In a retrospective approach, we analyzed the sera of 79 patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and 14 patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) before the start of chemotherapy, as well as before the second and third chemotherapy cycle, respectively. Serum MIF levels were measured using a sandwich immunoassay with a sulfo-tag-labelled detection antibody, while pro-gastrin releasing peptide (proGRP) levels were determined with an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.

Results: No difference in serum MIF levels between responders and non-responders to chemotherapy was observed at all time points, while proGRP levels were significantly lower in responders before the second chemotherapy cycle (p = 0.012). No differences in biomarker levels depending on the histopathological classification of NSCLC patients was found. Moreover, in ROC curve analyses MIF was not able to distinguish between responders and non-responders to therapy. proGRP could differentiate between responders and non-responders before the second chemotherapy cycle (p = 0.015) with sensitivities of 43% at 90% and 95% specificity, respectively. Likewise, proGRP yielded significantly longer survival times of patients with low proGRP concentrations before the second chemotherapy cycle (p = 0.015) in Kaplan-Meier analyses, yet MIF showed no significant differences in survival times at all time points. Comparison with the biomarkers CEA and CYFRA 21-1 in the same cohort showed that these established biomarkers clearly performed superior to MIF and proGRP.

Conclusions: From the present results, there is no indication that serum MIF may serve as a biomarker in prognosis and monitoring of response to therapy in lung cancer. Limitations of this study include its retrospective design, the inclusion of a larger NSCLC and a smaller SCLC subgroup, the classical chemotherapeutic treatment, the use of a non-diagnostic immunoassay (RUO-test) for MIF measurement and the lack of a validation cohort. Strengths of the study are its highly standardized procedures concerning sample collection, preanalytic treatment, measurements and quality control of the laboratory assays.

Background: Serum tumor markers (STM) may complement imaging and provide additional clinical information for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Objective: To determine whether STMs can predict outcomes in patients with stable disease (SD) after initial treatment.

Methods: This single-center, prospective, observational trial enrolled 395 patients with stage III/IV treatment-naïve NSCLC; of which 263 patients were included in this analysis. Computed Tomography (CT) scans were performed and STMs measured before and after initial treatment (two cycles of chemotherapy and/or an immune checkpoint inhibitor or tyrosine kinase inhibitor); analyses were based on CT and STM measurements obtained at first CT performed after cycle 2 only PFS and OS were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox-proportional hazard models.

Results: When patients with SD (n = 100) were split into high- and low-risk groups based on CYFRA 21-1, CEA and CA 125 measurements using an optimized cut-off, a 4-fold increase risk of progression or death was estimated for high- vs low-risk SD patients (PFS, HR 4.17; OS, 3.99; both p < 0.0001). Outcomes were similar between patients with high-risk SD or progressive disease (n = 35) (OS, HR 1.17) and between patients with low-risk SD or partial response (n = 128) (PFS, HR 0.98; OS, 1.14).

Conclusions: STMs can provide further guidance in patients with indeterminate CT responses by separating them into high- and low-risk groups for future PFS and OS events.

Blood-based diagnostics for lung cancer support the diagnosis, estimation of prognosis, prediction, and monitoring of therapy response in lung cancer patients. The clinical utility of serum tumor markers has considerably increased due to developments in serum protein tumor markers analytics and clinical biomarker studies, the exploration of preanalytical and influencing conditions, the interpretation of biomarker combinations and individual biomarker kinetics, as well as the implementation of biostatistical models. In addition, circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and other liquid biopsy markers are playing an increasingly prominent role in the molecular tumor characterization and the monitoring of tumor evolution over time. Thus, modern lung cancer biomarkers may considerably contribute to an individualized companion diagnostics and provide a sensitive guidance for patients throughout the course of their disease. In this special edition on Tumor Markers in Lung Cancer, experts summarize recent developments in clinical laboratory diagnostics of lung cancer and give an outlook on future challenges and opportunities.

Background: Protein tumor markers are released in high amounts into the blood in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Objective: To investigate the relevance of serum tumor markers (STM) for prognosis, prediction and monitoring of therapy response in NSCLC patients receiving chemotherapy.

Methods: In a biomarker substudy of a prospective, multicentric clinical trial (CEPAC-TDM) on 261 advanced NSCLC patients, CYFRA 21-1, CEA, SCC, NSE, ProGRP, CA125, CA15-3 and HE4 were assessed in serial serum samples and correlated with radiological response after two cycles of chemotherapy and overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

Results: While pretherapeutic STM levels at staging did not discriminate between progressive and non-progressive patients, CYFRA 21-1, CA125, NSE and SCC at time of staging did, and yielded AUCs of 0.75, 0.70, 0.69 and 0.67 in ROC curves, respectively. High pretherapeutic CA15-3 and CA125 as well as high CYFRA 21-1, SCC, CA125 and CA15-3 levels at staging were prognostic for shorter PFS and OS -also when clinical variables were added to the models.

Conclusions: STM at the time of first radiological staging and pretherapeutic CA15-3, CA125 are predictive for first-line treatment response and highly prognostic in patients with advanced NSCLC.

Background: Differential diagnosis of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and small cell lung cancer (SCLC) in hospitalized patients is crucial for appropriate treatment choice.

Objective: To investigate the relevance of serum tumor markers (STMs) and their combinations for the differentiation of NSCLC and SCLC subtypes.

Methods: Between 2000 and 2003, 10 established STMs were assessed retrospectively in 311 patients with NSCLC, 128 with SCLC prior systemic first-line therapy and 51 controls with benign lung diseases (BLD), by automatized electrochemiluminescence immunoassay technology. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of both individual and multiple STMs with corresponding sensitivities at 90% specificity. Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD guidelines) were followed.

Results: CYFRA 21-1 (cytokeratin-19 fragment), CEA (carcinoembryonic antigen) and NSE (neuron specific enolase) were significantly higher in all lung cancers vs BLD, reaching AUCs of 0.81 (95% CI 0.76-0.87), 0.78 (0.73-0.84), and 0.88 (0.84-0.93), respectively. By the three marker combination, the discrimination between benign and all malignant cases was improved resulting in an AUC of 0.93 (95% CI 0.90-0.96). In NSCLC vs. BLD, CYFRA 21-1, CEA and NSE were best discriminative STMs, with AUCs of 0.86 (95% CI 0.81-0.91), 0.80 (0.74-0.85), and 0.85 (0.79-0.91). The three marker combination also improved the AUC: 0.92; 95% CI 0.89-0.96). In SCLC vs. BLD, ProGRP (pro-gastrin-releasing peptide) and NSE were best discriminative STMs, with AUCs of 0.89 (95% CI 0.84-0.94) and 0.96 (0.93-0.98), respectively, and slightly improved AUC of 0.97 (95% CI 0.95-0.99) when in combination. Finally, discrimination between SCLC and NSCLC was possible by ProGRP (AUC 0.86; 95% CI 0.81-0.91), NSE (AUC 0.83; 0.78-0.88) and CYFRA 21-1 (AUC 0.69; 0.64-0.75) and by the combination of the 3 STMs (AUC 0.93; 0.91-0.96), with a sensitivity of 88% at 90% specificity.

Conclusions: The results confirm the power of STM combinations for the differential diagnosis of lung cancer from benign lesions and between histological lung cancer subtypes.

Background: For lung cancer, circulating tumor markers (TM) are available to guide clinical treatment decisions. To ensure adequate accuracy, pre-analytical instabilities need to be known and addressed in the pre-analytical laboratory protocols.

Objective: This study investigates the pre-analytical stability of CA125, CEA, CYFRA 21.1, HE4 and NSE for the following pre-analytical variables and procedures; i) whole blood stability, ii) serum freeze-thaw cycles, iii) electric vibration mixing and iv) serum storage at different temperatures.

Methods: Left-over patient samples were used and for every investigated variable six patient samples were used and analysed in duplicate. Acceptance criteria were based on analytical performance specifications based on biological variation and significant differences with baseline.

Results: Whole blood was stable for at least 6 hours for all TM except for NSE. Two freeze-thaw cycles were acceptable for all TM except CYFRA 21.1. Electric vibration mixing was allowed for all TM except for CYFRA 21.1. Serum stability at 4°C was 7 days for CEA, CA125, CYFRA 21.1 and HE4 and 4 hours for NSE.

Conclusions: Critical pre-analytical processing step conditions were identified that, if not taken into account, will result in reporting of erroneous TM results.

Background: Therapeutic possibilities for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have considerably increased during recent decades.

Objective: To summarize the prognostic relevance of serum tumor markers (STM) for early and late-stage NSCLC patients treated with classical chemotherapies, novel targeted and immune therapies.

Methods: A PubMed database search was conducted for prognostic studies on carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), cytokeratin-19 fragment (CYFRA 21-1), neuron-specific enolase, squamous-cell carcinoma antigen, progastrin-releasing-peptide, CA125, CA 19-9 and CA 15-3 STMs in NSCLC patients published from 2008 until June 2022.

Results: Out of 1069 studies, 141 were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria. A considerable heterogeneity regarding design, patient number, analytical and statistical methods was observed. High pretherapeutic CYFRA 21-1 levels and insufficient decreases indicated unfavorable prognosis in many studies on NSCLC patients treated with chemo-, targeted and immunotherapies or their combinations in early and advanced stages. Similar results were seen for CEA in chemotherapy, however, high pretherapeutic levels were sometimes favorable in targeted therapies. CA125 is a promising prognostic marker in patients treated with immunotherapies. Combinations of STMs further increased the prognostic value over single markers.

Conclusion: Protein STMs, especially CYFRA 21-1, have prognostic potential in early and advanced stage NSCLC. For future STM investigations, better adherence to comparable study designs, analytical methods, outcome measures and statistical evaluation standards is recommended.

Background: Patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and stable disease (SD) have an unmet clinical need to help guide early treatment adjustments.

Objective: To evaluate the potential of tumor biomarkers to inform on survival outcomes in NSCLC SD patients.

Methods: This post hoc analysis included 480 patients from the IMpower150 study with metastatic NSCLC, treated with chemotherapy, atezolizumab and bevacizumab combinations, who had SD at first CT scan (post-treatment initiation). Patients were stratified into high- and low-risk groups (overall survival [OS] and progression-free survival [PFS] outcomes) based on serum tumor biomarker levels.

Results: The CYFRA 21-1 and CA 125 biomarker combination predicted OS and PFS in patients with SD. Risk of death was ~4-fold higher for the biomarker-stratified high-risk versus low-risk SD patients (hazard ratio [HR] 3.80; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.02-4.78; p < 0.0001). OS in patients with the low- and high-risk SD was comparable to that in patients with the CT-defined partial response (PR; HR 1.10; 95% CI 0.898-1.34) and progressive disease (PD) (HR 1.05; 95% CI 0.621-1.77), respectively. The findings were similar with PFS, and consistent across treatment arms.

Conclusions: Biomarker testing shows potential for providing prognostic information to help direct treatment in NSCLC patients with SD. Prospective clinical studies are warranted.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02366143.

From its onset and during its progression, lung cancer may affect various extrapulmonary structures. These include the serous membranes, the pleura and pericardium, and less frequently the central nervous system, with leptomeningeal involvement. In these cases, fluid accumulates in the serous membranes which may contain substances secreted by the tumor. Measuring the concentrations of these substances can provide useful information for elucidating the origin of the fluid accumulation, either in pleural and pericardial effusions or in cerebrospinal fluid. This paper describes the histological types of lung cancer that most frequently affect the serosa and leptomeninges. It also reviews the literature on tumor markers in different fluids and makes recommendations for their interpretation.