C S Jury1, E J McAllister, R M MacKie. 1. Department of Dermatology, North Glasgow Hospitals University NHS Trust and University of Glasgow, Robertson Building, Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several serum markers may be useful in the detection of metastatic melanoma, but none is in routine clinical use. OBJECTIVE: To assess the validity of S100 protein as a serum marker of melanoma progression. METHODS: Serum S100 protein levels were measured in 496 serum samples from 214 melanoma patients, using the Sangtec luminescence immunoassay. There were 75 patients with stage 1 melanoma, 66 initially with stage 2 melanoma, 49 initially with stage 3 melanoma and 24 with stage 4 melanoma. RESULTS: Serum S100 protein levels were < 0.2 microg L-1 in 71 of 75 (95%) stage 1 patients. One patient who had a normal level developed local recurrence. Fifty-eight of 66 (88%) stage 2 patients also had normal serum S100 protein levels. One with elevated levels progressed to stage 3 melanoma and five with elevated levels progressed to stage 4 disease. The remaining two with elevated serum S100 protein remained well. Thirty-five of 49 (71%) stage 3 patients had normal levels and, of these, two have progressed to stage 4 disease. Three patients with stage 3 disease had an elevated serum S100 protein level on one occasion but remained well. Eleven of 13 patients who developed stage 4 melanoma during the study had rising levels of serum S100 protein > 0.2 microg L-1 5-23 weeks before detection of melanoma progression by conventional means. Twenty-two of 24 patients with stage 4 disease throughout the study had consistently elevated serum S100 protein levels, and the two patients with normal levels were clinically disease free after surgery and chemotherapy. None of 14 control subjects with atypical naevi had elevated S100 protein levels, and only one of 11 healthy normal controls had an elevated level. CONCLUSIONS: Thus, rising levels of serum S100 protein are a specific and sensitive clinically relevant marker of tumour progression in melanoma patients, which precedes other evidence of melanoma recurrence.
BACKGROUND: Several serum markers may be useful in the detection of metastatic melanoma, but none is in routine clinical use. OBJECTIVE: To assess the validity of S100 protein as a serum marker of melanoma progression. METHODS: Serum S100 protein levels were measured in 496 serum samples from 214 melanomapatients, using the Sangtec luminescence immunoassay. There were 75 patients with stage 1 melanoma, 66 initially with stage 2 melanoma, 49 initially with stage 3 melanoma and 24 with stage 4 melanoma. RESULTS: Serum S100 protein levels were < 0.2 microg L-1 in 71 of 75 (95%) stage 1 patients. One patient who had a normal level developed local recurrence. Fifty-eight of 66 (88%) stage 2 patients also had normal serum S100 protein levels. One with elevated levels progressed to stage 3 melanoma and five with elevated levels progressed to stage 4 disease. The remaining two with elevated serum S100 protein remained well. Thirty-five of 49 (71%) stage 3 patients had normal levels and, of these, two have progressed to stage 4 disease. Three patients with stage 3 disease had an elevated serum S100 protein level on one occasion but remained well. Eleven of 13 patients who developed stage 4 melanoma during the study had rising levels of serum S100 protein > 0.2 microg L-1 5-23 weeks before detection of melanoma progression by conventional means. Twenty-two of 24 patients with stage 4 disease throughout the study had consistently elevated serum S100 protein levels, and the two patients with normal levels were clinically disease free after surgery and chemotherapy. None of 14 control subjects with atypical naevi had elevated S100 protein levels, and only one of 11 healthy normal controls had an elevated level. CONCLUSIONS: Thus, rising levels of serum S100 protein are a specific and sensitive clinically relevant marker of tumour progression in melanomapatients, which precedes other evidence of melanoma recurrence.
Authors: Emanuelle M Rizk; Angelina M Seffens; Megan H Trager; Michael R Moore; Larisa J Geskin; Robyn D Gartrell-Corrado; Winston Wong; Yvonne M Saenger Journal: Am J Clin Dermatol Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 7.403
Authors: Klaus Strobel; Jeannine Skalsky; Victor Kalff; Katrin Baumann; Burkhardt Seifert; Helen Joller-Jemelka; Reinhard Dummer; Hans C Steinert Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2007-03-28 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Nikolaus B Wagner; Andrea Forschner; Ulrike Leiter; Claus Garbe; Thomas K Eigentler Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2018-06-28 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Wouter Ouwerkerk; Mirjam van den Berg; Sanne van der Niet; Jacqueline Limpens; Rosalie M Luiten Journal: Melanoma Res Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: H Gogas; A M M Eggermont; A Hauschild; P Hersey; P Mohr; D Schadendorf; A Spatz; R Dummer Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: S Kruijff; E Bastiaannet; A C Muller Kobold; R J van Ginkel; A J H Suurmeijer; H J Hoekstra Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 5.344