AIM: To compare trends in liver function test (LFT) levels over consecutive visits before detection of liver metastasis (LM) from uveal melanoma (UM) with such trends in the serum tumor markers S-100β, melanoma inhibitory activity (MIA), osteopontin (OPN), and tissue polypeptide-specific antigen (TPS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Blood was drawn from 32 patients with metastatic UM and 43 disease-free (DF) patients semi-annually for levels of S-100β, MIA, OPN, and TPS. Abdominal ultrasonography (US) and LFTs were used to detect LM. Median LFT levels were calculated at 6-month intervals prior to the clinical detection of LM. Trends in LFT levels over consecutive visits in the groups were compared with trends in the tumor markers for these groups. RESULTS: Only LDH gave a statistically significant difference between the trends of the metastasis and DF groups (p=0.0041). When calculating the lead time, all of the elevations were non-significant except for gamma glutamyltransferase which showed a statistically significant elevation at time 0, the time of detection of metastasis. LDH showed a rise at 0-6 months before detection, but this was not significant. For the tumor markers, steeper trendlines were shown for the metastasis group for MIA and S-100β, and most of the markers showed a lead time of more than six months, although this was statistically significant only for OPN. CONCLUSION: Following the dynamics of tumor markers and LFTs may help to find metastatic disease in UM patients before the metastases are detectable by imaging, enabling earlier treatment.
AIM: To compare trends in liver function test (LFT) levels over consecutive visits before detection of liver metastasis (LM) from uveal melanoma (UM) with such trends in the serum tumor markers S-100β, melanoma inhibitory activity (MIA), osteopontin (OPN), and tissue polypeptide-specific antigen (TPS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Blood was drawn from 32 patients with metastatic UM and 43 disease-free (DF) patients semi-annually for levels of S-100β, MIA, OPN, and TPS. Abdominal ultrasonography (US) and LFTs were used to detect LM. Median LFT levels were calculated at 6-month intervals prior to the clinical detection of LM. Trends in LFT levels over consecutive visits in the groups were compared with trends in the tumor markers for these groups. RESULTS: Only LDH gave a statistically significant difference between the trends of the metastasis and DF groups (p=0.0041). When calculating the lead time, all of the elevations were non-significant except for gamma glutamyltransferase which showed a statistically significant elevation at time 0, the time of detection of metastasis. LDH showed a rise at 0-6 months before detection, but this was not significant. For the tumor markers, steeper trendlines were shown for the metastasis group for MIA and S-100β, and most of the markers showed a lead time of more than six months, although this was statistically significant only for OPN. CONCLUSION: Following the dynamics of tumor markers and LFTs may help to find metastatic disease in UM patients before the metastases are detectable by imaging, enabling earlier treatment.
Authors: Chandrani Chattopadhyay; Dae Won Kim; Dan S Gombos; Junna Oba; Yong Qin; Michelle D Williams; Bita Esmaeli; Elizabeth A Grimm; Jennifer A Wargo; Scott E Woodman; Sapna P Patel Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-03-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Johanna Winter; Max M Lenders; Maximilian Gassenmaier; Andrea Forschner; Ulrike Leiter; Benjamin Weide; Mette-Triin Purde; Lukas Flatz; Antonio Cozzio; Martin Röcken; Claus Garbe; Thomas K Eigentler; Nikolaus B Wagner Journal: Cancer Immunol Immunother Date: 2020-10-28 Impact factor: 6.968