BACKGROUND: Malignant mesothelioma is an aggressive, uniformly fatal tumor. Serum markers would be useful for the diagnosis of this disease. One potential marker is mesothelin. The purpose of this study was to study the mesothelin biomarker in a large patient cohort and to determine if another biomarker, CA125, improves on the sensitivity of mesothelin in the diagnosis of mesothelioma. METHODS: Serum levels of mesothelin and CA125 were determined by commercially available assays in 117 samples obtained at diagnosis from patients with pleural malignant mesothelioma, 33 healthy, asbestos-exposed individuals, 53 patients with asbestos-related lung or pleural disease, and 30 patients presenting with benign pleural effusions. Cross-validated sensitivities were determined, and receiver operator characteristic curves were generated to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the biomarkers. RESULTS: CA125 had a cross-validated sensitivity of 27% for mesothelioma patients at a specificity of 95% relative to asbestos-exposed individuals, or 50% relative to individuals with benign pleural effusions. Mesothelin had a cross-validated sensitivity of 52% for mesothelioma patients, at a sensitivity of 95% relative to individuals with benign lung or pleural disease. CA125 and mesothelin levels were discordant in > 50% of mesothelioma patients. Combining the data from the two biomarkers using a logistic regression model did not improve sensitivity for detecting mesothelioma above that of the mesothelin marker alone. CONCLUSION: Combining mesothelin and CA125 data does not improve the sensitivity of mesothelioma diagnosis over mesothelin alone. The use of both markers potentially increases the number of patients who can be monitored.
BACKGROUND:Malignant mesothelioma is an aggressive, uniformly fatal tumor. Serum markers would be useful for the diagnosis of this disease. One potential marker is mesothelin. The purpose of this study was to study the mesothelin biomarker in a large patient cohort and to determine if another biomarker, CA125, improves on the sensitivity of mesothelin in the diagnosis of mesothelioma. METHODS: Serum levels of mesothelin and CA125 were determined by commercially available assays in 117 samples obtained at diagnosis from patients with pleural malignant mesothelioma, 33 healthy, asbestos-exposed individuals, 53 patients with asbestos-related lung or pleural disease, and 30 patients presenting with benign pleural effusions. Cross-validated sensitivities were determined, and receiver operator characteristic curves were generated to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the biomarkers. RESULTS:CA125 had a cross-validated sensitivity of 27% for mesotheliomapatients at a specificity of 95% relative to asbestos-exposed individuals, or 50% relative to individuals with benign pleural effusions. Mesothelin had a cross-validated sensitivity of 52% for mesotheliomapatients, at a sensitivity of 95% relative to individuals with benign lung or pleural disease. CA125 and mesothelin levels were discordant in > 50% of mesotheliomapatients. Combining the data from the two biomarkers using a logistic regression model did not improve sensitivity for detecting mesothelioma above that of the mesothelin marker alone. CONCLUSION: Combining mesothelin and CA125 data does not improve the sensitivity of mesothelioma diagnosis over mesothelin alone. The use of both markers potentially increases the number of patients who can be monitored.
Authors: Elad Sharon; Jingli Zhang; Kevin Hollevoet; Seth M Steinberg; Ira Pastan; Masanori Onda; Jochen Gaedcke; B Michael Ghadimi; Thomas Ried; Raffit Hassan Journal: Clin Chem Lab Med Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 3.694
Authors: Hector Alvarez; Pamela Leal Rojas; Ken-Tye Yong; Hong Ding; Gaixia Xu; Paras N Prasad; Jean Wang; Marcia Canto; James R Eshleman; Elizabeth A Montgomery; Anirban Maitra Journal: Nanomedicine Date: 2008-08-08 Impact factor: 5.307
Authors: Mehmet Bayram; Isa Dongel; Ali Akbaş; Ismail Benli; Muhammed Emin Akkoyunlu; Nur Dilek Bakan Journal: Lung Date: 2013-10-30 Impact factor: 2.584
Authors: Nico van Zandwijk; Christopher Clarke; Douglas Henderson; A William Musk; Kwun Fong; Anna Nowak; Robert Loneragan; Brian McCaughan; Michael Boyer; Malcolm Feigen; David Currow; Penelope Schofield; Beth Ivimey Nick Pavlakis; Jocelyn McLean; Henry Marshall; Steven Leong; Victoria Keena; Andrew Penman Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Kevin Hollevoet; Johannes B Reitsma; Jenette Creaney; Bogdan D Grigoriu; Bruce W Robinson; Arnaud Scherpereel; Alfonso Cristaudo; Harvey I Pass; Kristiaan Nackaerts; José A Rodríguez Portal; Joachim Schneider; Thomas Muley; Francesca Di Serio; Paul Baas; Marco Tomasetti; Alex J Rai; Jan P van Meerbeeck Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-03-12 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Fabian Mc Johnston; Marcus C B Tan; Benjamin R Tan; Matthew R Porembka; Elizabeth M Brunt; David C Linehan; Peter O Simon; Stacey Plambeck-Suess; Timothy J Eberlein; Karl Erik Hellstrom; Ingegerd Hellstrom; William G Hawkins; Peter Goedegebuure Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2009-10-20 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Chirag A Shah; Kimberly A Lowe; Pamela Paley; Erin Wallace; Garnet L Anderson; Martin W McIntosh; M Robyn Andersen; Nathalie Scholler; Lindsay A Bergan; Jason D Thorpe; Nicole Urban; Charles W Drescher Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 4.254