| Literature DB >> 20525245 |
Gregory E Rice1, Tracey A Edgell, Dominic J Autelitano.
Abstract
The aims of this study were: to characterise and compare plasma concentrations of midkine (MDK) in normal healthy women with concentrations observed in women with ovarian cancer; and to establish and compare the performance of MDK with that of anterior gradient 2 protein (AGR2) and CA125 in the development of multi-analyte classification algorithms for ovarian cancer. Median plasma concentrations of immunoreactive MDK, AGR2 and CA125 were significantly greater in the case cohort (909 pg/ml, 765 pg/ml and 502 U/ml, respectively n = 46) than in the control cohort (383 pg/ml, 188 pg/ml and 13 U/ml, respectively n = 61) (p < 0.001). The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) for MDK and AGR2 was not significantly different (0.734 +/- 0.046 and 0.784 +/- 0.049, respectively, mean +/- SE) but were both significantly less than the AUC for CA125 (0.934 +/- 0.030, p < 0.003). When subjected to stochastic gradient boosted logistic regression modelling, the AUC of the multi-analyte panel (MDK, AGR2 and CA125, 0.988 +/- 0.010) was significantly greater than that of CA125 alone (0.934 +/- 0.030, p = 0.035). The sensitivity and specificity of the multi-analyte algorithm were 95.2 and 97.7%, respectively. Within the study cohort, CA125 displayed a sensitivity and specificity of 87.0 and 94.6%, respectively. The data obtained in this study confirm that both MDK and AGR2 individually display utility as biomarkers for ovarian cancer and that in a multi-analyte panel significantly improve the diagnostic utility of CA125 in symptomatic women.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20525245 PMCID: PMC3161349 DOI: 10.1186/1756-9966-29-62
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Exp Clin Cancer Res ISSN: 0392-9078
Distribution of Ovarian Tumor Types and Stages of ovarian cancer patients used for plasma AGR2 and CA125 measurements.
| All Tumors | Stage I | Stage II | Stage III | Unstaged | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 29 | 3 | 17 | 9 | ||
| 5 | 1 | 3 | 1 | ||
| 4 | 2 | 2 | |||
| 2 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 3 | 1 | 2 | |||
| 3 | 2 | 1 | |||
| 46 | 9 | 26 | 10 | 1 | |
Inclusion and exclusion criteria for inclusion of patient samples in the study.
| Inclusion Criteria | Exclusion Criteria |
|---|---|
| Age 18-80 | Chemotherapy, biologic therapy or any other investigational drug for any reason within 28 days prior to sampling. |
| Newly diagnosed, histologically or pathologically confirmed diagnosis of epithelial carcinoma of the ovary. | Except for cancer-related abnormalities, patients should not have unstable or pre-existing major medical conditions. |
| No NSAID or prednisone use within 14 days of sampling. | Major surgical procedure, open biopsy, or significant traumatic injury within 28 days prior to sampling |
| No previous chemotherapy or radiation therapy. | Minor surgical procedures, fine needle aspirations or core biopsies within 7 days prior to sampling |
| No concurrent disease(s) | Serious, non-healing wound, ulcer, or bone |
| Signed informed client consent | |
Figure 1Plasma biomarker concentrations. The median plasma concentration within each group (normal women (controls) n = 61 and women with ovarian cancer (cases) n = 46) is represented by the horizontal line. Biomarker concentrations were significantly greater in case cohorts (solid symbols) when compared to their respective control cohort (open symbols) (p < 0.001, Mann Whitney tests). Data are presented as log (plasma concentration). CA125 as U/ml; and MDK and AGR2 as pg/ml.
Case cohort variation in plasma analyte concentration by stage of disease and tumor type, as assessed by Kruskal-Wallis One Way Analysis of Variance (Stage and Tumor Type).
| Analyte | ||
|---|---|---|
| MDK | 0.722 | 0.839 |
| AGR2 | 0.776 | 0.334 |
| CA125 | 0.524 | 0.214 |
# 1 sample was unstaged
† 3 samples were not typed
Comparison of AUC for MDK, AGR2, CA125 and multi-analyte panel Data represent AUC ± standard errors (SEM).
| Analyte | AUC ± SEM | p |
|---|---|---|
| CA125 | 0.934 ± 0.027 | |
| MDK | 0.753 ± 0.049 | < 0.001 |
| AGR2 | 0.768 ± 0.048 | = 0.001 |
| Multi-analyte Algorithm | 0.988 ± 0.011 | = 0.038 |
The difference in the AUC of MDK, AGR2 and the multi-analyte algorithm are compared to that of CA125. The AUC of MDK was not statistically significantly different from the AUC of AGR2 (p > 0.05).
Figure 2Predicted posterior probability values (ρP). Values were generated by multivariate modelling for each patient set of biomarkers for Case and Control cohorts.
Figure 3ROC curve comparison. ROC curves are displayed for the multi-analyte algorithm (midkine, AGR2 and CA125) and CA125 alone. The AUC (± SEM) for the multi-analyte panel (black diamond) (0.988 ± 0.010) was significantly greater than that of CA125 alone (black circle) (0.934 ± 0.030, p = 0.035).