Comparison of fibulin-3 and mesothelin as markers in malignant mesothelioma.

BACKGROUND: Pleural malignant mesothelioma (MM) is a deadly tumour predominantly associated with asbestos exposure. A reliable diagnostic and prognostic marker for MM will significantly enhance clinical care and is an area of intense research. Soluble mesothelin is the most studied and an FDA-approved biomarker for MM. A recent report showed promising results using fibulin-3 as a new diagnostic marker. The aim of this study was to compare the utility of fibulin-3 versus mesothelin, singly or in combination. METHODS: Fibulin-3 and soluble mesothelin were determined by ELISA in the plasma and pleural fluid of 153 patients presenting with a pleural effusion including 82 with MM, 36 with non-MM malignant effusions and 35 with benign effusions. Biomarker concentrations were determined in the plasma of an additional 49 cases with benign asbestos-related disease. RESULTS: Mesothelin provides better diagnostic accuracy than fibulin-3 for MM whether measured in plasma or pleural effusion: area under the curve (AUC) for plasma was 0.822 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.87) compared with 0.671 (0.61 to 0.73), respectively, and for pleural fluid AUC was 0.815 (0.74 to 0.87) compared with 0.588 (0.51 to 0.67), respectively. Effusion fibulin-3 was an independent significant prognostic factor for survival in MM patients; HR 2.08 (1.14 to 3.82), p=0.017. MM patients with effusion fibulin-3 levels below the median survived significantly longer than those with levels above the median (14.1 vs 7.9 months, p=0.012). Mesothelin and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio were not significant prognostic markers. CONCLUSIONS: Soluble mesothelin is a superior diagnostic biomarker for MM compared with fibulin-3, whereas fibulin-3 provides superior prognostic information compared with mesothelin.

Does CA125 binding to mesothelin impact the detection of malignant mesothelioma?

The biomarker mesothelin is a useful diagnostic tool in malignant mesothelioma (MM) patients. It has high specificity but a sensitivity of only 50%. As mesothelin binds CA125, and as CA125 is often elevated in MM, we asked whether this binding affected measurable mesothelin levels in a relevant clinical setting. Mesothelin and CA125 concentrations were measured in the serum of 41 patients with MM. An assay was developed to detect mesothelin bound to CA125. Mesothelin was demonstrated to be bound by CA125 in 9 of 41 MM patients. This binding could be broken by the addition of sodium dodecyl sulphate and diethylenetriaminepenta acetic acid (DTPA) to the samples, however this did not lead to any change in the mesothelin level measured. We therefore conclude that binding of mesothelin to CA125 does not alter the measurement of mesothelin for the detection of MM.

Comparison of osteopontin, megakaryocyte potentiating factor, and mesothelin proteins as markers in the serum of patients with malignant mesothelioma.

INTRODUCTION: There is increasing interest in identifying a blood-based marker for the asbestos-related tumor, malignant mesothelioma. Three potential markers for mesothelioma are mesothelin, megakaryocyte potentiating factor (MPF) and osteopontin. The purpose of the current study was to directly compare these biomarkers in the same sample population, determining their sensitivity and specificity in establishing a diagnosis, and to determine if diagnostic accuracy for mesothelioma is improved by combining the data from all three markers. METHODS: Serum levels of mesothelin, MPF and osteopontin were determined by commercially available assays in 66 samples from patients with pleural malignant mesothelioma, 20 healthy individuals, 21 patients with asbestos-related lung or pleural disease, 30 patients presenting with benign pleural effusions and 30 patients with other malignancies. RESULTS: Serum levels of the three markers were elevated in mesothelioma patients. At a level of specificity of 95% relative to healthy controls and patients with benign asbestos related disease, the sensitivity for mesothelioma was 34% for MPF, 47% for osteopontin and 73% for mesothelin. Osteopontin and MPF were unable to differentiate patients with mesothelioma from patients with other malignancies or those presenting with transudative pleural effusions. Combining the data from the three biomarkers using a logistic regression model did not improve sensitivity for detecting mesothelioma above that of the mesothelin marker alone. CONCLUSION: Serum mesothelin remains the most specific marker for the diagnosis of mesothelioma.