| Literature DB >> 23094052 |
Steve Goodison1, Myron Chang, Yunfeng Dai, Virginia Urquidi, Charles J Rosser.
Abstract
Accurate urinary assays for bladder cancer (BCa) detection would benefit both patients and healthcare systems. Through genomic and proteomic profiling of urine components, we have previously identified a panel of biomarkers that can outperform current urine-based biomarkers for the non-invasive detection of BCa. Herein, we report the diagnostic utility of various multivariate combinations of these biomarkers. We performed a case-controlled validation study in which voided urines from 127 patients (64 tumor bearing subjects) were analyzed. The urinary concentrations of 14 biomarkers (IL-8, MMP-9, MMP-10, SDC1, CCL18, PAI-1, CD44, VEGF, ANG, CA9, A1AT, OPN, PTX3, and APOE) were assessed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Diagnostic performance of each biomarker and multivariate models were compared using receiver operating characteristic curves and the chi-square test. An 8-biomarker model achieved the most accurate BCa diagnosis (sensitivity 92%, specificity 97%), but a combination of 3 of the 8 biomarkers (IL-8, VEGF, and APOE) was also highly accurate (sensitivity 90%, specificity 97%). For comparison, the commercial BTA-Trak ELISA test achieved a sensitivity of 79% and a specificity of 83%, and voided urine cytology detected only 33% of BCa cases in the same cohort. These data show that a multivariate urine-based assay can markedly improve the accuracy of non-invasive BCa detection. Further validation studies are under way to investigate the clinical utility of this panel of biomarkers for BCa diagnosis and disease monitoring.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23094052 PMCID: PMC3477150 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0047469
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Demographic and clinicopathologic characteristics of the study cohort.
| Non-cancer (%)N = 63 | Cancer (%)N = 64 | |
| Median Age (range, y) | 60 (30–81) | 69.5 (22–90) |
| Male : Female ratio | 55∶8 | 55∶9 |
|
| ||
| White | 41 (65) | 58 (91) |
| African American | 8 (13) | 0 (0) |
| Other | 14 (22) | 6 (9) |
| Gross hematuria | 0 (0) | 47 (73) |
| Suspicious/positive cytology | 0 (0) | 21 (33) |
| Median follow-up (months) | 11.5 | 12.0 |
|
| ||
| Tis∧ | n/a | 6 (9) |
| Ta | n/a | 15 (23) |
| T1 | n/a | 9 (14) |
| T2 | n/a | 31 (48) |
| T3 | n/a | 4 (6) |
| T4 | n/a | 2 (3) |
| N+ ∼ | n/a | 3 (5) |
|
| ||
| Low | n/a | 9 (14) |
| High | n/a | 55 (86) |
|
| n/a | 4.5 |
∧, 4 subjects with concomitant cis had T1 (n = 2) and T2 (n = 2) disease.
∼, Subjects with T2 (n = 1), T3 ( = 1) and T4 (n = 1) disease and node positive.
Mean and median urinary levels of 14 biomarkers assessed by ELISA.
| Biomarker | Cancer | Normal | P-value | ||
| Mean ± StdDev | Median [Min, Max] | Mean ± StdDev | Median [Min, Max] | ||
| IL8 (pg/ml) | 1368.08±3546.65 | 128.43 [0, 17140.16] | 5.18±21.32 | 0 [0, 134.33] | <0.0001 |
| MMP9 (ng/ml) | 47.42±143.23 | 0.9 [0, 1002.6] | 0.34±1.85 | 0 [0, 14.25] | <0.0001 |
| SDC1 (ng/ml) | 56.59±75.57 | 33.33 [0, 335.18] | 48.40±42.45 | 38.62 [0, 199.55] | 0.487 |
| CCL18 (pg/ml) | 654.89±1640.48 | 57.26 [0, 9523.04] | 4.48±9.73 | 0 [0, 37.69] | <0.0001 |
| PA1 (ng/ml) | 7.18±21.04 | 0.25 [0.25, 125.26] | 0.28±0.08 | 0.25 [0.25, 0.64] | <0.0001 |
| CD44 (ng/ml) | 53.97±56.05 | 28.73 [16.67, 344.04] | 117.71±104.76 | 87.38 [16.08, 616.3] | <0.0001 |
| VEGF (pg/ml) | 873.69±1757.89 | 339.98 [0, 9841.4] | 69.34±198.38 | 0 [0, 904.76] | <0.0001 |
| ANG (pg/ml) | 1530.34±3252.44 | 436.96 [3.28, 17944] | 124.70±163.90 | 42.78 [20.48, 696.18] | <0.0001 |
| CA9 (pg/ml) | 115.11±536.60 | 10.36 [0, 4132.9] | 3.84±5.65 | 0 [0, 28.28] | <0.0001 |
| A1AT (ng/ml) | 3487.06±10839.43 | 1227.15 [11.18, 83296] | 158.16±397.63 | 39.48 [5.93, 2448.85] | <0.0001 |
| OPN (ng/ml) | 553.25±793.13 | 240.84 [0.27, 3926] | 1643.61±2012.57 | 979.45 [0, 11120] | <0.0001 |
| PTX3 (ng/ml) | 1.17±1.67 | 0.92 [0, 12.5] | 0.90±0.89 | 0.64 [0, 2.63] | 0.267 |
| APOE (pg/ml) | 180.0±330.0 | 70.0 [10.0, 1780] | 30.0±30.0 | 20.0 [0, 110] | <0.0001 |
| MMP10 (pg/ml) | 101.74±157.45 | 75.31 [0, 1239.84] | 62.21±50.56 | 45.86 [0, 226.12] | 0.008 |
Two-sided p-values obtained from Wilcoxon rank sum tests.
Figure 1Diagnostic performance of urinary biomarker combinations.
ROC curves were plotted to compare performance characteristics of the total 8-biomarker combination, a 3-biomarker combination (IL-8, VEGF, APOE), a 2-biomarker combination (VEGF, APOE), and the BTA-Trak test. Based on the area under the ROC curve (AUROC),Youden Index cutoff values that maximized the sum of sensitivity and specificity were determined for each biomarker (crossed square on curve). Table provides performance values for each combination. PPV, positive predictive value. NPV, negative predictive value.