Literature DB >> 12794585

Diagnosis and monitoring of colorectal cancer by L6 blood serum polymerase chain reaction is superior to carcinoembryonic antigen-enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.

Thomas H K Schiedeck1, Carsten Wellm, Uwe J Roblick, Rainer Broll, Hans-Peter Bruch.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare carcinoembryonic antigen levels with detection of messenger ribonucleic acid coding for the tumor-associated antigen L6 in patients with colorectal cancer. Not only are carcinoembryonic antigens expressed by the corresponding tumor cell, but the messenger ribonucleic acid of tumor-associated antigens, in contrast, is produced exclusively by viable tumor cells.
METHODS: L6 messenger ribonucleic acid was determined by reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction. Carcinoembryonic antigen was measured by the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay technique, with a cutoff value of 40 microg/l. Blood serum was sampled from 187 patients with colorectal cancer. Statistical significance was calculated with the McNemar chi-squared test.
RESULTS: Preoperatively, 79 percent of patients in all stages were positive for L6 messenger ribonucleic acid, whereas only 35 percent had elevated carcinoembryonic antigen titers (P < 0.001). In Dukes A tumors, 84.9 percent of patients were positive for L6 messenger ribonucleic acid, whereas carcinoembryonic antigen was elevated in only 16.9 percent of patients. Only in Dukes D tumors did the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for carcinoembryonic antigen exhibit the same sensitivity as reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction for L6 messenger ribonucleic acid. Recurrence was detected significantly earlier by reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction for L6 messenger ribonucleic acid than by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for carcinoembryonic antigen.
CONCLUSION: L6 is more sensitive and precise than carcinoembryonic antigen in diagnosing and monitoring colorectal cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12794585     DOI: 10.1007/s10350-004-6662-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum        ISSN: 0012-3706            Impact factor:   4.585


  7 in total

Review 1.  Screening for colorectal cancer: established and emerging modalities.

Authors:  Nikhil Pawa; Tan Arulampalam; John D Norton
Journal:  Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2011-11-01       Impact factor: 46.802

Review 2.  Serum tests for colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  James Creeden; Frank Junker; Sabine Vogel-Ziebolz; Douglas Rex
Journal:  Mol Diagn Ther       Date:  2011-06-01       Impact factor: 4.074

Review 3.  Early detection of colon cancer: new tests on the horizon.

Authors:  Akshay K Gupta; Dean E Brenner; D Kim Turgeon
Journal:  Mol Diagn Ther       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 4.074

Review 4.  Colorectal cancer: from prevention to personalized medicine.

Authors:  Gemma Binefa; Francisco Rodríguez-Moranta; Alex Teule; Manuel Medina-Hayas
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-06-14       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 5.  Colorectal Cancer Biomarkers: Where Are We Now?

Authors:  Maria Gonzalez-Pons; Marcia Cruz-Correa
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2015-05-27       Impact factor: 3.411

6.  Upregulation of transmembrane 4 L6 family member 1 predicts poor prognosis in invasive breast cancer: A STROBE-compliant article.

Authors:  Peng Xing; Huiting Dong; Qun Liu; Tingting Zhao; Fan Yao; Yingying Xu; Bo Chen; Xinyu Zheng; Yunfei Wu; Feng Jin; Jiguang Li
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 1.889

7.  Machine Learning-Based Identification of Colon Cancer Candidate Diagnostics Genes.

Authors:  Saraswati Koppad; Annappa Basava; Katrina Nash; Georgios V Gkoutos; Animesh Acharjee
Journal:  Biology (Basel)       Date:  2022-02-25
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.