| Literature DB >> 22291846 |
Sapoznik Sivan1, Faranesh Suzan, Ortenberg Rona, Hamburger Tamar, Barak Vivian, Peretz Tamar, Schachter Jacob, Markel Gal, Lotem Michal.
Abstract
The search for melanoma biomarkers is crucial, as the incidence of melanoma continues to rise. We have previously demonstrated that serum CEACAM1 (sCEACAM1) is secreted from melanoma cells and correlates with disease progression in metastatic melanoma patients. Here, we have used a different cohort of melanoma patients with regional or metastatic disease (N = 49), treated with autologous vaccination. By monitoring sCEACAM1 in serum samples obtained prior to and after vaccination, we show that sCEACAM1 correlates with disease state, overall survival, and S100B. The trend of change in sCEACAM1 following vaccination (increase/decrease) inversely correlates with overall survival. DTH skin test is used to evaluate patients' anti-melanoma immune response and to predict response to vaccination. Importantly, sCEACAM1 had a stronger prognostic value than that of DTH, and when sCEACAM1 decreased following treatment, this was the dominant predictor of increased survival. Collectively, our results point out the relevance of sCEACAM1 in monitoring melanoma patients.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22291846 PMCID: PMC3265158 DOI: 10.1155/2012/290536
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Dev Immunol ISSN: 1740-2522
Depiction of the clinical characteristics of 20 WED and 29 NED melanoma patients used in this study.
| Total number of patients | 49 (100%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| 25 (51%) | |
| <40 | 9 (18.4%) | ||
| 41–60 | 16 (32.7%) | ||
| >61 | 24 (49%) | ||
|
| |||
|
|
| ||
| Stage II | 2 | 0–12 months | 12 (24.5%) |
| Stage III | 32 | 13–24 months | 13 (26.5%) |
| Stage IV | 15 | 25–36 months | 4 (8.2%) |
| >37 months | 20 (40.8%) | ||
|
| |||
|
|
| ||
| Stage II | 2 (6.9%) | Stage III (unresectable) | 10 (50%) |
| Stage III (respectable) | 22 (76%) | Stage IV: M1a | 1 (5%) |
| Stage IV: M1b | 2 (6.9%) | M1b | 1 (5%) |
| M1c | 3 (10.3%) | M1c | 8 (40%) |
|
| |||
|
|
| ||
| Time point 0: | Time point 0: | ||
| normal | 87% (20/23) | normal | 78% (11/14) |
| above normal | 13% (3/23) | above normal | 21% (3/14) |
| Time point 1: | Time point 1: | ||
| normal | 78% (18/23) | normal | 64% (7/11) |
| above normal | 22% (5/23) | above normal | 36% (4/11) |
Figure 1sCEACAM1 in WED patients increases over time and as compared with NED patients. sCEACAM1 was measured by ELISA in serum samples of 29 NED (A, B) and 20 WED (C, D) malignant melanoma patients, both before (time point 0) and following treatment (time point 1). Vertical lines indicate medians.
Figure 2The correlations between sCEACAM1 and survival. The whole group of patients and NED exclusively or WED exclusively were divided into two groups (“low”/“high”) according to pre-treatment sCEACAM1 median level, and the survival rate of each subgroup was analyzed by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Group sizes were as follows: N = 24 (low) and N = 25 (high) in (a); N = 15 (low) and N = 14 (high) in (b).
sCEACAM1 correlates with S100B. ELISA measurements of posttreatment sCEACACM1 and S100B yielded values that were divided relative to median levels into “low” and “high.” The correlations between the two resulted “low” subgroups, as well as between the two “high” subgroups, were tested and found to be significant (P = 0.02). Percentages in each cubical refer to sCEACACM1 (first row) or to S100B (second row).
| Low S100B | High S100B | |
|---|---|---|
| Low CEACAM1 |
|
|
| 65.5% (19/29) | 34.5% (10/29) | |
| 76% (19/25) | 43.5% (10/23) | |
|
| ||
| High CEACAM1 |
|
|
| 31.6% (6/19) | 68.4% (13/19) | |
| 24% (6/25) | 56.5% (13/23) | |
Figure 3The change of sCEACAM1 following vaccination inversely correlates with survival. The change in sCEACAM1 following treatment (post minus pre-vaccination) was calculated and the patients (N = 49) were divided according to the trend of sCEACAM1 change. Kaplan-Meier plots were used to describe the survival rates of each subgroup of patients. Groups sizes were as follows: N = 26 (decreased sCEACAM1) and N = 23 (increased sCEACAM1).
Figure 4Monitoring of sCEACAM1 further stratifies DTH-negative patients into two prognostically distinct groups. The analysis described in Figure 3 was performed exclusively for (a) DTH-negative patients (N = 24) and (b) DTH-positive patients (N = 23). Subgroups sizes were N = 11 (DTH−) or N = 15 (DTH+) for decreased sCEACAM1 and N = 13 (DTH−) or N = 8 (DTH+) for increased sCEACAM1.