OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of lysophosphatidic acid (LPA) as a tumor marker in diagnosis and follow-up of patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: Eighty-seven epithelial ovarian cancer patients, 74 benign ovarian tumor patients, and 50 healthy women were enrolled in the study. Twenty-nine of 87 epithelial ovarian cancer patients were followed up for 6 cycles of paclitaxel-carboplatin chemotherapy. CA-125 and total plasma LPA levels were measured preoperatively and before each chemotherapy cycle. RESULTS: Preoperative total plasma LPA and serum CA-125 levels were significantly higher in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer compared to patients with benign ovarian tumors and healthy women. Cut-off value for LPA was determined as 1.3 µmol/L and sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 95%, 92%, 95% and 92%, respectively. Mean total plasma LPA level of 29 patients who received chemotherapy was 7.21±6.63 µmol/L preoperatively and 6.84±6.34 µmol/L, 6.34±5.92 µmol/L, 6.14±5.79 µmol/L, 5.86±5.68 µmol/L, 5.23±5.11 µmol/L and 5.21±5.32 µmol/L in measurements held just before the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th chemotherapy cycles, respectively (ANOVA, p=0.832). Total plasma LPA levels decreased slightly with chemotherapy administration and there was a weak negative correlation (Spearman, r(s)=-0.151, p=0.034), compared to a significant negative correlation in CA-125 (Spearman, r(s)=-0.596, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: LPA is a better biomarker for diagnosis of epithelial ovarian cancer compared to CA-125. However, measurement of total plasma LPA levels during chemotherapy administration have no superiority to the serum CA-125 levels.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of lysophosphatidic acid (LPA) as a tumor marker in diagnosis and follow-up of patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: Eighty-seven epithelial ovarian cancerpatients, 74 benign ovarian tumorpatients, and 50 healthy women were enrolled in the study. Twenty-nine of 87 epithelial ovarian cancerpatients were followed up for 6 cycles of paclitaxel-carboplatin chemotherapy. CA-125 and total plasma LPA levels were measured preoperatively and before each chemotherapy cycle. RESULTS: Preoperative total plasma LPA and serum CA-125 levels were significantly higher in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer compared to patients with benign ovarian tumors and healthy women. Cut-off value for LPA was determined as 1.3 µmol/L and sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 95%, 92%, 95% and 92%, respectively. Mean total plasma LPA level of 29 patients who received chemotherapy was 7.21±6.63 µmol/L preoperatively and 6.84±6.34 µmol/L, 6.34±5.92 µmol/L, 6.14±5.79 µmol/L, 5.86±5.68 µmol/L, 5.23±5.11 µmol/L and 5.21±5.32 µmol/L in measurements held just before the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th chemotherapy cycles, respectively (ANOVA, p=0.832). Total plasma LPA levels decreased slightly with chemotherapy administration and there was a weak negative correlation (Spearman, r(s)=-0.151, p=0.034), compared to a significant negative correlation in CA-125 (Spearman, r(s)=-0.596, p<0.001). CONCLUSION:LPA is a better biomarker for diagnosis of epithelial ovarian cancer compared to CA-125. However, measurement of total plasma LPA levels during chemotherapy administration have no superiority to the serum CA-125 levels.
Authors: T Furui; R LaPushin; M Mao; H Khan; S R Watt; M A Watt; Y Lu; X Fang; S Tsutsui; Z H Siddik; R C Bast; G B Mills Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Jaime Symowicz; Brian P Adley; Michelle M M Woo; Nelly Auersperg; Laurie G Hudson; M Sharon Stack Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2005-03-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Juan Ren; Yi-jin Xiao; Lisam Shanjukumar Singh; Xiaoxian Zhao; Zhenwen Zhao; Li Feng; Tyler M Rose; Glenn D Prestwich; Yan Xu Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2006-03-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: R C Bast; T L Klug; E St John; E Jenison; J M Niloff; H Lazarus; R S Berkowitz; T Leavitt; C T Griffiths; L Parker; V R Zurawski; R C Knapp Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1983-10-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Xianjun Fang; Michel Schummer; Muling Mao; Shuangxing Yu; Fazal Haq Tabassam; Ramona Swaby; Yutaka Hasegawa; Janos L Tanyi; Ruthie LaPushin; Astrid Eder; Robert Jaffe; Jim Erickson; Gordon B Mills Journal: Biochim Biophys Acta Date: 2002-05-23
Authors: Ji Hee Ha; Jeremy D Ward; Lakshmi Varadarajalu; Sang Geon Kim; Danny N Dhanasekaran Journal: Cell Signal Date: 2013-09-19 Impact factor: 4.315
Authors: Wei Dai; Jens M Teodoridis; Constanze Zeller; Janet Graham; Jenny Hersey; James M Flanagan; Euan Stronach; David W Millan; Nadeem Siddiqui; Jim Paul; Robert Brown Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2011-04-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Lei Wang; Martha Sibrian-Vazquez; Jorge O Escobedo; Jialu Wang; Richard G Moore; Robert M Strongin Journal: Chem Commun (Camb) Date: 2015-01-31 Impact factor: 6.222
Authors: Kang Jin Jeong; Kyung Hwa Cho; Nattapon Panupinthu; Hoon Kim; Jaeku Kang; Chang Gyo Park; Gordon B Mills; Hoi Young Lee Journal: Mol Oncol Date: 2012-10-23 Impact factor: 6.603
Authors: Jialu Wang; Martha Sibrian-Vazquez; Jorge O Escobedo; Mark Lowry; Lei Wang; Yu-Hsuan Chu; Richard G Moore; Robert M Strongin Journal: Analyst Date: 2013-11-21 Impact factor: 4.616
Authors: Jialu Wang; Martha Sibrian-Vazquez; Jorge O Escobedo; Lei Wang; Yu-Hsuan Chu; Richard G Moore; Robert M Strongin Journal: Analyst Date: 2015-11-21 Impact factor: 4.616
Authors: Alexander Triebl; Martin Trötzmüller; Anita Eberl; Pia Hanel; Jürgen Hartler; Harald C Köfeler Journal: J Chromatogr A Date: 2014-04-28 Impact factor: 4.759