Literature DB >> 16985025

Evaluation of apolipoprotein A1 and posttranslationally modified forms of transthyretin as biomarkers for ovarian cancer detection in an independent study population.

Lee E Moore1, Eric T Fung, Marielena McGuire, Charles C Rabkin, Annette Molinaro, Zheng Wang, Fujun Zhang, Jing Wang, Christine Yip, Xiao-Ying Meng, Ruth M Pfeiffer.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although overall 5-year survival rates for ovarian cancer are poor (10-30%), stage I/IIa patients have a 95% 5-year survival. New biomarkers that improve the diagnostic performance of existing tumor markers are critically needed. A previous study by Zhang et al. reported identification and validation of three biomarkers using proteomic profiling that together improved early-stage ovarian cancer detection.
METHODS: To evaluate these markers in an independent study population, postdiagnostic/pretreatment serum samples were collected from women hospitalized at the Mayo Clinic from 1980 to 1989 as part of the National Cancer Institute Immunodiagnostic Serum Bank. Sera from 42 women with ovarian cancer, 65 with benign tumors, and 76 with digestive diseases were included in this study. Levels of various posttranslationally forms of transthyretin and apolipoprotein A1 were measured in addition to CA125.
RESULTS: Mean levels of five of the six forms of transthyretin were significantly lower in cases than in controls. The specificity of a model including transthyretin and apolipoprotein A1 alone was high [96.5%; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 91.9-98.8%] but sensitivity was low (52.4%; 95% CI, 36.4-68.0%). A class prediction algorithm using all seven markers, CA125, and age maintained high specificity (94.3%; 95% CI, 89.1-97.5%) but had higher sensitivity (78.6%; 95% CI, 63.2-89.7%).
CONCLUSIONS: We were able to replicate the findings reported by Zhang et al. in an independently conducted blinded study. These results provide some evidence that including age of patient and these markers in a model may improve specificity, especially when CA125 levels are >/=35 units/mL. Influences of sample handling, subject characteristics, and other covariates on biomarker levels require further consideration in discovery and replication or validation studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16985025     DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0980

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  37 in total

Review 1.  Protein biomarkers of ovarian cancer: the forest and the trees.

Authors:  Brian M Nolen; Anna E Lokshin
Journal:  Future Oncol       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 3.404

2.  Identification of potential serum markers for endometrial cancer using protein expression profiling.

Authors:  Masashi Takano; Yoshihiro Kikuchi; Takayoshi Asakawa; Tomoko Goto; Tsunekazu Kita; Kazuya Kudoh; Junzo Kigawa; Noriaki Sakuragi; Masaru Sakamoto; Toru Sugiyama; Nobuo Yaegashi; Hiroshi Tsuda; Hiroshi Seto; Mieko Shiwa
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-09-16       Impact factor: 4.553

3.  Proteomic analyses of human plasma: Venus versus Mars.

Authors:  Christopher C Silliman; Monika Dzieciatkowska; Ernest E Moore; Marguerite R Kelher; Anirban Banerjee; Xiayuan Liang; Kevin J Land; Kirk C Hansen
Journal:  Transfusion       Date:  2011-08-31       Impact factor: 3.157

4.  Proteomic biomarkers apolipoprotein A1, truncated transthyretin and connective tissue activating protein III enhance the sensitivity of CA125 for detecting early stage epithelial ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Charlotte H Clarke; Christine Yip; Donna Badgwell; Eric T Fung; Kevin R Coombes; Zhen Zhang; Karen H Lu; Robert C Bast
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2011-06-25       Impact factor: 5.482

5.  Development of a multimarker assay for early detection of ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Zoya Yurkovetsky; Steven Skates; Aleksey Lomakin; Brian Nolen; Trenton Pulsipher; Francesmary Modugno; Jeffrey Marks; Andrew Godwin; Elieser Gorelik; Ian Jacobs; Usha Menon; Karen Lu; Donna Badgwell; Robert C Bast; Anna E Lokshin
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-04-05       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 6.  Meningiomas and Proteomics: Focus on New Potential Biomarkers and Molecular Pathways.

Authors:  Rosaria Viola Abbritti; Francesca Polito; Maria Cucinotta; Claudio Lo Giudice; Maria Caffo; Chiara Tomasello; Antonino Germanò; Mohammed Aguennouz
Journal:  Cancer Genomics Proteomics       Date:  2016 09-10       Impact factor: 4.069

7.  Serum differential protein identification of Xinjiang Kazakh esophageal cancer patients based on the two-dimensional liquid-phase chromatography and LTQ MS.

Authors:  Cui Li; Guo Xia; Zhang Jianqing; Yang Mei; Bai Ge; Zhang Li
Journal:  Mol Biol Rep       Date:  2014-01-28       Impact factor: 2.316

8.  Validation of candidate serum ovarian cancer biomarkers for early detection.

Authors:  Feng Su; Jennifer Lang; Ashutosh Kumar; Carey Ng; Brian Hsieh; Marc A Suchard; Srinivasa T Reddy; Robin Farias-Eisner
Journal:  Biomark Insights       Date:  2007-10-16

9.  Proteomic identification of neoadjuvant chemotherapy-related proteins in bulky stage IB-IIA squamous cervical cancer.

Authors:  Shuangwei Zou; Qi Shen; Ying Hua; Wenxiao Jiang; Wenwen Zhang; Xueqiong Zhu
Journal:  Reprod Sci       Date:  2013-04-18       Impact factor: 3.060

10.  The multiplex bead array approach to identifying serum biomarkers associated with breast cancer.

Authors:  Byoung Kwon Kim; Jong Won Lee; Pil Je Park; Yong Sung Shin; Won Young Lee; Kyung Ae Lee; Sena Ye; Heesun Hyun; Kyung Nam Kang; Donghwa Yeo; Youngdai Kim; Sung Yup Ohn; Dong Young Noh; Chul Woo Kim
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2009-04-28       Impact factor: 6.466

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.