State of the art and trends of circulating cancer biomarkers.

The role of biomarkers is crucial in oncology for both early diagnosis and the personalization of cancer treatments. Tissue biomarkers have gained a central role as predictors of the response to an increasing number of anticancer agents; conversely, the clinical role of circulating biomarkers (c-TMs) is limited and has remained almost unchanged over the years. The position of guidelines is summarized and discussed with reference to the potential usefulness of c-TMs in those areas of application that cannot be covered by tissue biomarkers. The pipeline of translational research on biomarkers is briefly described; the differences among analytical validation, clinical validation, and clinical utility are discussed, emphasizing that the assessment of clinical utility is the ultimate step toward clinical use. The role of monitoring of appropriateness as a proxy indicator of how the research pipeline has actually worked is discussed, and data and c-TMs overordering rates are reported. The role and limits of guidelines to influence appropriate c-TMs ordering are discussed. The design of primary studies on c-TMs is examined, underlining that they mainly focus on clinical validation rather than on clinical utility. The role of regulatory boards is also briefly presented and discussed

the role of molecular and imaging biomarkers in the evaluation of inflammation in oncology

n/

Experimental validation of specificity of the squamous cell carcinoma antigen-immunoglobulin M (SCCA-IgM) assay in patients with cirrhosis

Background: Squamous cell carcinoma antigen-immunoglobulin M (SCCA-IgM) is a useful biomarker for the risk of development of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with cirrhosis due to its progressive increase associated to HCC evolution. In patients with cirrhosis, other assays have been affected by interfering reactivities of IgM. In this study, the analytical specificity of the SCCA-IgM assay was assessed by evaluating SCCA-IgM measurement dependence on different capture phases, and by measuring the recovery of SCCA-IgM reactivity following serum fractionation. Methods: Serum samples from 82 patients with cirrhosis were analyzed. SCCA-IgM was measured using the reference test (Hepa-IC, Xeptagen, Italy) that is based on rabbit oligoclonal anti-squamous cell carcinoma antigen (SCCA) and a dedicated ELISA with a mouse monoclonal anti-SCCA as the capture antibody. Results: SCCA-IgM concentrations measured with the reference assay (median value=87 AU/mL) were higher than those measured with the mouse monoclonal test (median value=78 AU/mL). However, the differences in the SCCA-IgM distribution were not statistically significant (p>0.05). When SCCA-IgM concentrations measured with both tests were compared, a linear correlation was found (r=0.77, p<0.05). Fractionation of the most reactive sera by gel-filtration chromatography showed that total recovery of SCCA-IgM reactivity was seen only in the fractions corresponding to components with a molecular weight higher than IgM and SCCA (>2000 kDa) with both tests. Conclusions: The equivalence of both SCCA-IgM assays and the absence of reactivity not related to immune complexes support the analytical specificity of SCCA-IgM measurements. The results validate the assessment of SCCA-IgM for prognostic purposes in patients with cirrhosis. Clin Chem Lab Med 2010;48:217–23.Peer Reviewe

Tumor markers in breast cancer - European Group on Tumor Markers recommendations

Recommendations are presented for the routine clinical use of serum and tissue-based markers in the diagnosis and management of patients with breast cancer. Their low sensitivity and specificity preclude the use of serum markers such as the MUC-1 mucin glycoproteins ( CA 15.3, BR 27.29) and carcinoembryonic antigen in the diagnosis of early breast cancer. However, serial measurement of these markers can result in the early detection of recurrent disease as well as indicate the efficacy of therapy. Of the tissue-based markers, measurement of estrogen and progesterone receptors is mandatory in the selection of patients for treatment with hormone therapy, while HER-2 is essential in selecting patients with advanced breast cancer for treatment with Herceptin ( trastuzumab). Urokinase plasminogen activator and plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 are recently validated prognostic markers for lymph node-negative breast cancer patients and thus may be of value in selecting node-negative patients that do not require adjuvant chemotherapy. Copyright (C) 2005 S. Karger AG, Basel

Intensive post-operative follow-up of breast cancer patients with tumour markers: CEA, TPA or CA15.3 vs MCA and MCA-CA15.3 vs CEA-TPA-CA15.3 panel in the early detection of distant metastases

BACKGROUND: In breast cancer current guidelines do not recommend the routine use of serum tumour markers. Differently, we observed that CEA-TPA-CA15.3 (carcinoembryonic (CEA) tissue polypeptide (TPA) and cancer associated 115D8/DF3 (CA15.3) antigens) panel permits early detection and treatment for most relapsing patients. As high sensitivity and specificity and different cut-off values have been reported for mucin-like carcinoma associated antigen (MCA), we compared MCA with the above mentioned tumour markers and MCA-CA15.3 with the CEA-TPA-CA15.3 panel. METHODS: In 289 breast cancer patients submitted to an intensive post-operative follow-up with tumour markers, we compared MCA (cut-off values, ≥ 11 and ≥ 15 U/mL) with CEA or CA15.3 or TPA for detection of relapse. In addition, we compared the MCA-CA15.3 and CEA-TPA-CA15.3 tumour marker panels. RESULTS: Distant metastases occurred 19 times in 18 (6.7%) of the 268 patients who were disease-free at the beginning of the study. MCA sensitivity with both cut-off values was higher than that of CEA or TPA or CA15.3 (68% vs 10%, 26%, 32% and 53% vs 16%, 42%, 32% respectively). With cut-off ≥ 11 U/mL, MCA showed the lowest specificity (42%); with cut-off ≥ 15 U/mL, MCA specificity was similar to TPA (73% vs 72%) and lower than that of CEA and CA15.3 (96% and 97% respectively). With ≥ 15 U/mL MCA cut-off, MCA sensitivity increased from 53% to 58% after its association with CA15.3. Sensitivity of CEA-TPA-CA15.3 panel was 74% (14 of 19 recurrences). Eight of the 14 recurrences early detected with CEA-TPA-CA15.3 presented as a single lesion (oligometastatic disease) (5) or were confined to bony skeleton (3) (26% and 16% respectively of the 19 relapses). With ≥ 11 U/mL MCA cut-off, MCA-CA15.3 association showed higher sensitivity but lower specificity, accuracy and positive predictive value than the CEA-TPA-CA15.3 panel. CONCLUSION: At both the evaluated cut-off values serum MCA sensitivity is higher than that of CEA, TPA or CA15.3 but its specificity is similar to or lower than that of TPA. Overall, CEA-TPA-CA15.3 panel is more accurate than MCA-CA15.3 association and can "early" detect a few relapsed patients with limited metastatic disease and more favourable prognosis. These findings further support the need for prospective randomised clinical trial to assess whether an intensive post-operative follow-up with an appropriate use of serum tumour markers can significantly improve clinical outcome of early detected relapsing patients