RESUMO
(1) Background: There is a huge unmet clinical need for novel treatment strategies in advanced and recurrent cervical cancer. Several cell membrane-bound molecules are up-regulated in cancer cells as compared to normal tissue and have revived interest with the introduction of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs). (2) Methods: In this study, we characterize the expression of 10 potential ADC targets, TROP2, mesotheline, CEACAM5, DLL3, folate receptor alpha, guanylatcyclase, glycoprotein NMB, CD56, CD70 and CD138, on the gene expression level. Of these, the three ADC targets TROP2, CEACAM5 and CD138 were further analyzed on the protein level. (3) Results: TROP2 shows expression in 98.5% (66/67) of cervical cancer samples. CEACAM5 shows a stable gene expression profile and overall, 68.7% (46/67) of cervical cancer samples are CEACAM-positive with 34.3% (23/67) of cervical cancer samples showing at least moderate or high expression. Overall, 73.1% (49/67) of cervical cancer samples are CD138-positive with 38.8% (26/67) of cervical cancer samples showing at least moderate or high expression. (4) Conclusions: TROP2, CEACAM5 or CD138 do seem suitable for further clinical research and the data presented here might be used to guide further clinical trials with ADCs in advanced and recurrent cervical cancer patients.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: High mobility group box 1 (HMGB1), soluble receptor of advanced glycation end products (sRAGE) and programmed cell death markers PD-1 and PD-L1 are immunogenic serum biomarkers that may serve as novel diagnostic tools for cancer diagnosis. METHODS: We investigated the four markers in sera of 231 women, among them 76 with ovarian cancer, 87 with benign diseases and 68 healthy controls, using enzyme immunoassays. Discrimination between groups was calculated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and sensitivities at fixed 90% and 95% specificities. RESULTS: HMGB1 levels were significantly elevated and sRAGE levels were decreased in cancer patients as compared to benign and healthy controls. In consequence, the ratio of HMGB1 and sRAGE discriminated best between diagnostic groups. The areas under the curve (AUCs) of the ROC curves for differentiation of cancer vs. healthy were 0.77 for HMGB1, 0.65 for sRAGE and 0.78 for the HMGB1/sRAGE ratio, and slightly lower for the differentiation of cancer vs. benigns with 0.72 for HMGB1, 0.61 for sRAGE and 0.74 for the ratio of both. The highest sensitivities for cancer detection at 90% specificity versus benign diseases were achieved using HMGB1 with 41.3% and the HMGB1/sRAGE ratio with 39.2%, followed by sRAGE with 18.9%. PD-1 showed only minor and PD-L1 no power for discrimination between ovarian cancer and benign diseases. CONCLUSION: HMGB1 and sRAGE have differential diagnostic potential for ovarian cancer detection and warrant inclusion in further validation studies.
RESUMO
Tumor marker determinations are valuable tools for the guidance of breast cancer patients during the course of disease. They are assessed on diverse analytical platforms that may be associated with differences according to the methods applied and the clinical performance. To investigate the method dependency and clinical significance of breast cancer protein tumor markers, CEA, CA 15-3, CA 125, CA 19-9 and AFP were measured in a total of 154 biobanked samples from 77 patients with breast cancer, 10 with DCIS, 31 with benign breast diseases and 36 healthy controls using a Millipore multiplex biomarker panel (MP) and an automized version of the routinely used Vista LOCI technology. The markers were compared between methods and investigated for diagnostic performance. CEA, CA 15-3 and AFP showed good correlations between both platforms with correlation coefficients of R = 0.85, 0.85 and 0.92, respectively, in all samples, but similarly also in the various subgroups. CA 125 and CA 19-9 showed only moderate correlations (R = 0.71 and 0.56, respectively). Absolute values were significantly higher for CEA, CA 15-3, CA 125 and AFP in the Vista LOCI as compared with the MP method and vice versa for CA 19-9. The diagnostic performance for discrimination of breast cancer from healthy controls was similar for both methods with AUCs in ROC curves for CEA (MP 0.81, 95% CI 0.72-0.91; LOCI 0.81; 95% CI 0.72-0.91) and CA-15-3 (MP 0.75, 95% CI 0.65-0.86; LOCI 0.67, 95% CI 0.54-0.79). Similar results were obtained for the comparison of breast cancer with benign breast diseases regarding CEA (AUC MP 0.62, 95% CI 0.51-0.73; LOCI 0.64, 95% CI 0.53-0.74) and CA-15-3 (MP 0.70, 95% CI 0.6-0.81; LOCI 0.66, 95% CI 0.54-0.77). Both platforms show moderate to good method comparability for tumor markers with similar clinical performance. However, absolute levels in individual patients should be interpreted with care.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Nowadays there still is no sufficient screening tool for ovarian and uterine cancer. OBJECTIVE: The current study aimed to investigate whether cancer antigen 125 (CA-125), tissue polypeptide antigen (TPA) or the combination of both markers are able to act as screening tools for ovarian or uterine cancer. METHODS: A total of 275 blood samples from different cohorts (ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, benign control group) were prospectively drawn and analyzed. RESULTS: Established biomarkers TPA and CA-125 showed elevated serum concentrations in patients with malignant tumors as compared to healthy women and women with benign diseases. In ROC curve analyses, both biomarkers were well able to discriminate between malignant and healthy, benign or overall non-malignant cases in the whole sample, with AUCs of 0.842 and above. While TPA was the best diagnostic marker in patients with uterine cancer, CA 125 was the best in patients with ovarian cancer. CONCLUSIONS: TPA and CA-125 both showed promising results for the detection of gynecologic malignancies. The combination of CA-125 and TPA did not improve sensitivity in comparison to single markers.