Lack of clinical utility of serum macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) for monitoring therapy response and estimating prognosis in advanced lung cancer.
Tumour Biol
; 46(s1): S341-S353, 2024.
Article
en En
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-37545291
ABSTRACT
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 (pâ=â0.012). 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 (pâ=â0.015) 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 (pâ=â0.015) 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.Palabras clave
Texto completo:
1
Colección:
01-internacional
Base de datos:
MEDLINE
Contexto en salud:
2_ODS3
Problema de salud:
2_cobertura_universal
Asunto principal:
Factores Inhibidores de la Migración de Macrófagos
/
Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas
/
Queratina-19
/
Carcinoma Pulmonar de Células Pequeñas
/
Neoplasias Pulmonares
/
Antígenos de Neoplasias
Tipo de estudio:
Prognostic_studies
Límite:
Humans
Idioma:
En
Revista:
Tumour Biol
Asunto de la revista:
NEOPLASIAS
Año:
2024
Tipo del documento:
Article
País de afiliación:
Alemania