Serum cytokine profiles in patients with pancreatic cancer and chronic pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pancreatitis (CP) may cause tumor-like lesions, creating a challenge in distinguishing between CP and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in a patient. Given that invasive surgery is a standard cancer treatment, we aimed to examine whether a noninvasive diagnostic tool utilizing serum cytokines could safely differentiate between PDAC and CP. METHODS: A pre-operative serum panel comprising 48 inflammatory cytokines, CA19-9, and C-reactive protein (CRP) was analyzed, consisting of 231 patients, 186 with stage I-III PDAC and 45 with CP. We excluded PDAC patients who underwent neoadjuvant therapy and those CP patients with other active malignancies. The laboratory variables most associated with PDAC diagnosis were assessed using logistic regression and selected using the lasso method. RESULTS: The cytokines CTACK, GRO-α, and ß-NGF were selected alongside CA19-9 and CRP for our differential diagnostic model. The area under the curve (AUC) for our differential diagnostic model was 0.809 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.738-0.880), compared with 0.791 (95% CI 0.728-0.854) for CA19-9 alone (not significant). CONCLUSIONS: We found that inflammatory cytokines CTACK, GRO-α, and ß-NGF alongside CA19-9 and CRP may help distinguish PDAC from CP.

Pancreatic cancer survival prediction via inflammatory serum markers.

BACKGROUND: For prognostic evaluation of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), the only well-established serum marker is carbohydrate antigen CA19-9. To improve the accuracy of survival prediction, we tested the efficacy of inflammatory serum markers. METHODS: A preoperative serum panel comprising 48 cytokines plus high-sensitivity CRP (hs-CRP) was analyzed in 173 stage I-III PDAC patients. Analysis of the effect of serum markers on survival utilized the Cox regression model, with the most promising cytokines chosen with the aid of the lasso method. We formed a reference model comprising age, gender, tumor stage, adjuvant chemotherapy status, and CA19-9 level. Our prognostic study model incorporated these data plus hs-CRP and the cytokines. We constructed time-dependent ROC curves and calculated an integrated time-averaged area under the curve (iAUC) for both models from 1 to 10 years after surgery. RESULTS: Hs-CRP and the cytokines CTACK, MIF, IL-1ß, IL-3, GRO-α, M-CSF, and SCF, were our choices for the prognostic study model, in which the iAUC was 0.837 (95% CI 0.796-0.902), compared to the reference model's 0.759 (95% CI 0.691-0.836, NS). These models divided the patients into two groups based on the maximum value of Youden's index at 7.5 years. In our study model, 60th percentile survival times were 4.5 (95% CI 3.7-NA) years (predicted high-survival group, n = 34) and 1.3 (95% CI 1.0-1.7) years (predicted low-survival group, n = 128), log rank p < 0.001. By the reference model, the 60th percentile survival times were 2.8 (95% CI 2.1-4.4) years (predicted high-survival group, n = 44) and 1.3 (95% CI 1.0-1.7) years (predicted low-survival group, n = 118), log rank p < 0.001. CONCLUSION: Hs-CRP and the seven cytokines added to the reference model including CA19-9 are potential prognostic factors for improved survival prediction for PDAC patients.

Toll-like receptor 2 and Toll-like receptor 4 predict favorable prognosis in local pancreatic cancer.

Toll-like receptors play an essential role in our innate immune system and are a focus of interest in contemporary cancer research. Thus far, Toll-like receptors have shown promising prognostic value in carcinomas of the oral cavity, colon, and ovaries, but the prognostic role of Toll-like receptors in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma has not been established. We set out to investigate whether Toll-like receptor expression could serve in prognostic evaluation in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, as well. Our study comprised 154 consecutive stage I-III pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients surgically treated at Helsinki University Hospital between 2002 and 2011. Patients who received neoadjuvant therapy were excluded. Tissue microarrays and immunohistochemistry allowed assessment of the expression of Toll-like receptor 2 and Toll-like receptor 4 in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma tissue, and we matched staining results against clinicopathological parameters using Fisher's test. For survival analysis, we used the Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test, and the Cox regression proportional hazard model for univariate and multivariate analyses. The hazard ratios were calculated for disease-specific overall survival. Strong Toll-like receptor 2 expression was observable in 51 (34%) patients and strong Toll-like receptor 4 in 50 (33%) patients. Overall, neither marker showed any direct coeffect on survival. However, strong Toll-like receptor 2 expression predicted better survival when tumor size was less than 30 mm (hazard ratio = 0.30; 95% confidence interval = 0.13-0.69; p = 0.005), and strong Toll-like receptor 4 expression predicted better survival in patients with lymph-node-negative disease (hazard ratio = 0.21; 95% confidence interval = 0.07-0.65; p = 0.006). In conclusion, we found strong Toll-like receptor 2 and Toll-like receptor 4 expressions to be independent factors of better prognosis in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients with stage I-II disease.

Toll-like receptor 1 predicts favorable prognosis in pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: The link between inflammation and carcinogenesis is indisputable. In trying to understand key factors at play, cancer research has developed an interest in the toll-like receptors (TLRs), which have shown signs of having prognostic value in various adenocarcinomas. We began investigating the expression of toll-like receptors 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 to evaluate their prognostic value of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). METHODS: We collected tumor biopsies from 154 stage I-III PDAC patients surgically treated at Helsinki University Hospital between 2002 and 2011, excluding patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy. We used tissue microarray slides and immunohistochemistry to assess expression of TLRs 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 in PDAC tissue. Immunopositivity scores and clinicopathological characteristics were subjected to Fisher's exact test or the linear-by-linear association test. For the survival analysis, we applied the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test, and the Cox regression proportional hazard model served for univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Strong TLR1 expression was observable in 60 (39%), strong TLR3 in 48 (31%), strong TLR5 in 58 (38%), strong TLR7 in 14 (9%), and strong TLR9 in 22 (14%) patients. The multivariate analysis showed strong TLR1 expression to associate with better survival than moderate, low, or negative expression (HR = 0.68; 95% CI 0.47-0.99; p = 0.044). Additionally, those few patients with tumors negative for TLR1, TLR3, TLR7, or TLR9 fared poorly (HR = 2.41; 95% CI 1.31-4.43; p = 0.005; n = 13). CONCLUSION: Strong TLR1 expression suggested better prognosis in PDAC patients, whereas negative expression of TLR1, TLR3, TLR7, or TLR9 was a sign of poor prognosis.