RATIONALE: Soluble mesothelin (SM) is currently the reference serum biomarker of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). Megakaryocyte potentiating factor (MPF), which originates from the same precursor protein, is potentially more sensitive, yet lacks validation. OBJECTIVES: To analyze the diagnostic performance of MPF as an MPM biomarker and compare this performance with SM. METHODS: A total of 507 participants were enrolled in six cohorts: healthy control subjects (n = 101), healthy asbestos-exposed individuals (n = 89), and patients with benign asbestos-related disease (n = 123), benign respiratory disease (n = 46), lung cancer (n = 63), and MPM (n = 85). Sera were analyzed for SM and MPF levels using the Mesomark and Human MPF ELISA kit, respectively. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: SM and MPF levels differed significantly between patients with MPM and participants from each other cohort (P < 0.001). Receiver operating characteristics curve analysis did not reveal a significant difference between both markers in area under curve (AUC) for distinguishing MPM from all cohorts jointly (SM = 0.871, MPF = 0.849; P = 0.28). At 95% specificity, SM and MPF had a sensitivity of 64% (cutoff = 2.00 nmol/L) and 68% (cutoff = 12.38 ng/ml), respectively. Combining both markers did not improve the diagnostic performance. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective multicenter study, MPF is validated as a highly performant MPM biomarker. The similar AUC values of SM and MPF, together with the limited difference in sensitivity, show that both serum biomarkers have an equivalent diagnostic performance.
RATIONALE: Soluble mesothelin (SM) is currently the reference serum biomarker of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). Megakaryocyte potentiating factor (MPF), which originates from the same precursor protein, is potentially more sensitive, yet lacks validation. OBJECTIVES: To analyze the diagnostic performance of MPF as an MPM biomarker and compare this performance with SM. METHODS: A total of 507 participants were enrolled in six cohorts: healthy control subjects (n = 101), healthy asbestos-exposed individuals (n = 89), and patients with benign asbestos-related disease (n = 123), benign respiratory disease (n = 46), lung cancer (n = 63), and MPM (n = 85). Sera were analyzed for SM and MPF levels using the Mesomark and HumanMPF ELISA kit, respectively. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:SM and MPF levels differed significantly between patients with MPM and participants from each other cohort (P < 0.001). Receiver operating characteristics curve analysis did not reveal a significant difference between both markers in area under curve (AUC) for distinguishing MPM from all cohorts jointly (SM = 0.871, MPF = 0.849; P = 0.28). At 95% specificity, SM and MPF had a sensitivity of 64% (cutoff = 2.00 nmol/L) and 68% (cutoff = 12.38 ng/ml), respectively. Combining both markers did not improve the diagnostic performance. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective multicenter study, MPF is validated as a highly performant MPM biomarker. The similar AUC values of SM and MPF, together with the limited difference in sensitivity, show that both serum biomarkers have an equivalent diagnostic performance.
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: Carmina Jiménez-Ramírez; Swaantje Casjens; Cuauhtémoc Arturo Juárez-Pérez; Irina Raiko; Luz M Del Razo; Dirk Taeger; Emma S Calderón-Aranda; Hans-Peter Rihs; Leonor Concepción Acosta-Saavedra; Daniel Gilbert Weber; Alejandro Cabello-López; Beate Pesch; María Dolores Ochoa-Vázquez; Katarzyna Burek; Luis Torre-Bouscoulet; José Rogelio Pérez-Padilla; Erik Marco García-Bazan; Thomas Brüning; Georg Johnen; Guadalupe Aguilar-Madrid Journal: Lung Date: 2019-07-02 Impact factor: 2.584
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: Clementina Mesaros; Andrew J Worth; Nathaniel W Snyder; Melpo Christofidou-Solomidou; Anil Vachani; Steven M Albelda; Ian A Blair Journal: Bioanalysis Date: 2015 Impact factor: 2.681
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