| Literature DB >> 24010981 |
Michela Capello1, Paola Cappello, Federica Caterina Linty, Roberto Chiarle, Isabella Sperduti, Anna Novarino, Paola Salacone, Giorgia Mandili, Alessio Naccarati, Carlotta Sacerdote, Stefania Beghelli, Samantha Bersani, Stefano Barbi, Claudio Bassi, Aldo Scarpa, Paola Nisticò, Mirella Giovarelli, Paolo Vineis, Michele Milella, Francesco Novelli.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a highly aggressive malignancy with only a 5% 5-year survival rate. Reliable biomarkers for early detection are still lacking. The goals of this study were (a) to identify early humoral responses in genetically engineered mice (GEM) spontaneously developing PDAC; and (b) to test their diagnostic/predictive value in newly diagnosed PDAC patients and in prediagnostic sera. METHODS ANDEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24010981 PMCID: PMC3844582 DOI: 10.1186/1756-8722-6-67
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Hematol Oncol ISSN: 1756-8722 Impact factor: 17.388
Clinical features of PDAC patients analyzed by ELISA
| | | | | |
| | Male | | 39 | 57 |
| | Female | | 30 | 43 |
| | | | | |
| | Mean | 63 | - | - |
| | Range | 42-84 | - | - |
| | | | | |
| | IB | | 1 | 2 |
| | IIA | | 7 | 10 |
| | IIB | | 29 | 42 |
| | III | | 10 | 14 |
| | IV | | 22 | 32 |
| | | | | |
| | Not reported | | 32 | 46 |
| | 1 | | 4 | 6 |
| | 2 | | 16 | 23 |
| | 3 | | 17 | 25 |
| | | | | |
| | Head | | 49 | 71 |
| | Body | | 6 | 9 |
| | Tail | | 5 | 7 |
| | Body-Tail | | 9 | 13 |
| | | | | |
| | Not reported | | 10 | 14 |
| | 0 | | 32 | 47 |
| | 1 | | 25 | 36 |
| | ≥2 | | 2 | 3 |
| | | | | |
| | Yes | | 39 | 57 |
| | No | | 30 | 43 |
| | | | | |
| | Evaluable | | 63 | 91 |
| | Mean | 3052 | - | - |
| | Median | 500 | - | - |
| | Range | 2- > 12000 | - | - |
| | | | | |
| | Evaluable | | 59 | 86 |
| | Gem | | 43 | 73 |
| | Gem/Oxal | | 10 | 17 |
| | Gem/5-FU | | 3 | 5 |
| | Non-Gem | | 1 | 2 |
| | No CT | | 2 | 3 |
| | | | | |
| | Evaluable | | 50 | 73 |
| | Positive | | 34 | 68 |
| Negative | 16 | 32 |
ECOG PS eastern cooperative oncology group performance status, 5-FU 5-fluorouracil, Gem gemcitabine, Oxal oxaliplatin, CT chemotherapy.
Rounded percentages.
Classified according to the TMN classification of malignant tumor of the pancreas (UICC).
First-line chemotherapy refers to palliative chemotherapy administered for relapsed, locally advanced inoperable, or metastatic disease.
Characteristics of the EPIC cohort subjects
| | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16 | 100 | 32 | 100 | |
| | | | | |
| | 54.9 | | 55.1 | |
| | 7.3 | | 7.5 | |
| | | | | |
| | 7 | 44 | 14 | 44 |
| | 9 | 56 | 18 | 56 |
| | | | | |
| | 61.2 | | | |
| | 5–117.1 | |||
Figure 1SERPA analysis of KC and KPC serum reactivity against K8484 cell line 2DE map. Total lysates from the K8484 cell line were separated by 2DE as described in the Methods section. Samples were focused in the first dimension using a gradient spanning the indicated pH range, separated in the second dimension in 4-12% acrylamide gels and subsequently Blue Coomassie stained (A) or transferred to a nitrocellulose membrane and probed with mouse sera. Three representative Western blot images show the immunoreactivity of control (B), KC (C) or KPC (D) serum. Immunoreactive protein spots were determined for each serum by superimposition of immunoblot signal pattern with the spot pattern of the corresponding Blue Coomassie stained gel using the “ProFinder 2D” software. Numbered circles indicate immunoreactive proteins specifically recognized by KC and KPC sera and identified by MALDI-TOF MS. Immunoreactive protein names are listed in Additional file 1: Table S1.
Figure 2Individual KC and KPC serum reactivity against the identified antigens. The intensity of reactivity of each control Cre, KC (A) and KPC (B) serum against each MALDI-TOF MS identified protein is represented as a gray gradient scale of color as described in the legend. The volume (Vol) of each immunoreactive spot was calculated after background subtraction with the image analysis software “ProFinder 2D” and reported as arbitrary units (AU). For proteins represented from more than one spot the volume was expressed as mean AU value.
Frequencies of sera reactivity against protein spots in analyzed groups
| 31% | 0% | 9% | 0% | 5% | ||
| | | | ||||
| 21% | 0 (0%) | 7% | 0% | 3% | ||
| | | | ||||
| 56% | 12% | 2% | 17% | 10% | ||
| | | | ||||
| 35% | 4% | 12% | 0% | 5% | ||
| | | | ||||
| 19% | 0% | 2% | 0% | 0% | ||
| | | | ||||
| 53% | 8% | 28% | 0% | 10% | ||
Reactive protein spots numbered as shown in Additional file 1: Figure S2. Frequencies are expressed as percentage of positive sera; Fisher’s test was performed between PDAC and each control group, P-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
Figure 3Antigen validation in resectable PDAC patients. (A) The graph shows the frequency of autoantibodies against mouse and human common immunoreactive antigens in the group of resectable patients who underwent surgery with curative intent (n = 38), analyzed by SERPA against CF-PAC-1 cell line 2DE map. P-values were calculated vs. control frequencies listed in Table 3 by Fisher's exact test (** P < 0.005). (B) Proteins were extracted from eight frozen PDAC tissues from surgically-treated patients (stage IIA and IIB), separated by 2DE, transferred to a nitrocellulose membrane and probed with the autologous serum. A representative Western blot is shown; circles indicate the presence of autoantibodies against the mouse and human common immunoreactive antigens.
Figure 4Diagnostic performance of EZR-autoantibodies captured by ELISA. (A) Scatter plots show the reactivity of PDAC (n = 69), healthy subject (HS, n = 45), non-PDAC (n = 28), autoimmune disease (AD, n = 12) and chronic pancreatitis (CP, n = 37) patient sera to EZR recombinant protein as assessed by ELISA: PDAC vs. HS, non-PDAC and CP P < 0.0001; PDAC vs. AD P = 0.0006. (B) Scatter plots show the reactivity of prediagnostic PDAC patient (n = 16) and matched control (n = 32) sera from the EPIC cohort to EZR recombinant protein as assessed by ELISA: PDAC vs. controls P = 0.0002. Reactivity is expressed as optical density (O.D.) read at 450 nm, P-values were calculated by Student's t-test. (C) ROC analysis of EZR-autoantibody sensitivity and specificity using O.D. obtained in ELISA as a continuous variable (cut-off value: O.D. = 0.1183). (D) Classification and regression tree (CART) analysis of CA19.9 serum levels (≥ 37 IU/ml), EZR-autoantibody reactivity (O.D. ≥ 0.1183) and ENOA1,2-autoantibody reactivity (expressed as 2DE WB positivity) with 93 PDAC patients and controls where all parameters were available. The number and percentage of PDAC patients and controls are shown for each node. (E) ROC analysis of sensitivity and specificity of EZR-autoantibody detection in combination with CA19.9 and ENOA1,2-autoantibodies in the cohort of samples where all three parameters were available (PDAC patients: n = 45; benign controls: HS, AD, CP, n = 48). The applied diagnostic algorithm assigns patients to the PDAC group when both EZR-autoantibodies and CA19.9 are positive, and separates discordant cases into PDAC or controls based on the presence or absence of ENOA1,2-autoantibodies.