PURPOSE: Mesothelin is currently considered the best available serum biomarker of malignant pleural mesothelioma. To examine the diagnostic accuracy and use of serum mesothelin in early diagnosis, we performed an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis. METHODS: The literature search identified 16 diagnostic studies of serum mesothelin, measured with the Mesomark enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. IPD of 4,491 individuals were collected, including several control groups and 1,026 patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Mesothelin levels were standardized for between-study differences and age, after which the diagnostic accuracy and the factors affecting it were examined with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) regression analysis. RESULTS: At a common diagnostic threshold of 2.00 nmol/L, the sensitivities and specificities of mesothelin in the different studies ranged widely from 19% to 68% and 88% to 100%, respectively. This heterogeneity can be explained by differences in study population, because type of control group, mesothelioma stage, and histologic subtype significantly affected the diagnostic accuracy. The use of mesothelin in early diagnosis was evaluated by differentiating 217 patients with stage I or II epithelioid and biphasic mesothelioma from 1,612 symptomatic or high-risk controls. The resulting area under the ROC curve was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.73 to 0.81). At 95% specificity, mesothelin displayed a sensitivity of 32% (95% CI, 26% to 40%). CONCLUSION: In patients suspected of having mesothelioma, a positive blood test for mesothelin at a high-specificity threshold is a strong incentive to urge further diagnostic steps. However, the poor sensitivity of mesothelin clearly limits its added value to early diagnosis and emphasizes the need for further biomarker research.
PURPOSE:Mesothelin is currently considered the best available serum biomarker of malignant pleural mesothelioma. To examine the diagnostic accuracy and use of serum mesothelin in early diagnosis, we performed an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis. METHODS: The literature search identified 16 diagnostic studies of serum mesothelin, measured with the Mesomark enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. IPD of 4,491 individuals were collected, including several control groups and 1,026 patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Mesothelin levels were standardized for between-study differences and age, after which the diagnostic accuracy and the factors affecting it were examined with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) regression analysis. RESULTS: At a common diagnostic threshold of 2.00 nmol/L, the sensitivities and specificities of mesothelin in the different studies ranged widely from 19% to 68% and 88% to 100%, respectively. This heterogeneity can be explained by differences in study population, because type of control group, mesothelioma stage, and histologic subtype significantly affected the diagnostic accuracy. The use of mesothelin in early diagnosis was evaluated by differentiating 217 patients with stage I or II epithelioid and biphasic mesothelioma from 1,612 symptomatic or high-risk controls. The resulting area under the ROC curve was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.73 to 0.81). At 95% specificity, mesothelin displayed a sensitivity of 32% (95% CI, 26% to 40%). CONCLUSION: In patients suspected of having mesothelioma, a positive blood test for mesothelin at a high-specificity threshold is a strong incentive to urge further diagnostic steps. However, the poor sensitivity of mesothelin clearly limits its added value to early diagnosis and emphasizes the need for further biomarker research.
Authors: Johannes B Reitsma; Afina S Glas; Anne W S Rutjes; Rob J P M Scholten; Patrick M Bossuyt; Aeilko H Zwinderman Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Heather L Beyer; Ryan D Geschwindt; Curtis L Glover; Ly Tran; Ingegerd Hellstrom; Karl-Erik Hellstrom; M Craig Miller; Thorsten Verch; W Jeffrey Allard; Harvey I Pass; Niranjan Y Sardesai Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2007-02-08 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Jenette Creaney; Nola J Olsen; Fraser Brims; Ian M Dick; Arthur W Musk; Nicholas H de Klerk; Steven J Skates; Bruce W S Robinson Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2010-07-22 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Kevin Hollevoet; Kristiaan Nackaerts; Robert Gosselin; Walter De Wever; Lionel Bosquée; Paul De Vuyst; Paul Germonpré; Eliane Kellen; Catherine Legrand; Yoshiro Kishi; Joris R Delanghe; Jan P van Meerbeeck Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Jenette Creaney; Deborah Yeoman; Leanne K Naumoff; Michelle Hof; Amanda Segal; Arthur William Musk; Nicholas De Klerk; Nora Horick; Steven J Skates; Bruce W S Robinson Journal: Thorax Date: 2007-03-13 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Jenette Creaney; Deborah Yeoman; Yvonne Demelker; Amanda Segal; A W Musk; Steven J Skates; Bruce W S Robinson Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 15.609
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: 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
Authors: Rosa Filiberti; Stefano Parodi; Roberta Libener; Giovanni Paolo Ivaldi; Pier Aldo Canessa; Donatella Ugolini; Barbara Bobbio; Paola Marroni Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2013-03-27 Impact factor: 3.064