Chanjuan Shi1, Nipun Merchant, Guy Newsome, David M Goldenberg, David V Gold. 1. From the Departments of Pathology, Microbiology, and Immunology (Dr Shi) and Surgical Oncology (Dr Merchant), Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee; and the Center for Molecular Medicine and Immunology, Garden State Cancer Center, Morris Plains, New Jersey (Mr Newsome and Drs Goldenberg and Gold).
Abstract
CONTEXT: PAM4 is a monoclonal antibody that shows high specificity for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and its neoplastic precursor lesions. A PAM4-based serum immunoassay is able to detect 71% of early-stage patients and 91% with advanced disease. However, approximately 20% of patients diagnosed with chronic pancreatitis (CP) are also positive for circulating PAM4 antigen. The specificity of the PAM4 antibody is critical to the interpretation of the serum-based and immunohistochemical assays for detection of PDAC. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether PAM4 can differentiate PDAC from nonneoplastic lesions of the pancreas. DESIGN: Tissue microarrays of PDAC (N = 43) and surgical specimens from CP (N = 32) and benign cystic lesions (N = 19) were evaluated for expression of the PAM4 biomarker, MUC1, MUC4, CEACAM5/6, and CA19-9. RESULTS: PAM4 and monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) to MUC1, MUC4, CEACAM5/6, and CA19-9 were each reactive with the majority of PDAC cases; however, PAM4 was the only monoclonal antibody not to react with adjacent, nonneoplastic parenchyma. Although PAM4 labeled 19% (6 of 32) of CP specimens, reactivity was restricted to pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia associated with CP; inflamed tissues were negative in all cases. In contrast, MUC1, MUC4, CEACAM5/6, and CA19-9 were detected in 90%, 78%, 97%, and 100% of CP, respectively, with reactivity also present in nonneoplastic inflamed tissue. CONCLUSIONS: PAM4 was the only monoclonal antibody able to differentiate PDAC (and pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia precursor lesions) from benign, nonneoplastic tissues of the pancreas. These results suggest the use of PAM4 for evaluation of tissue specimens, and support its role as an immunoassay for detection of PDAC.
CONTEXT: PAM4 is a monoclonal antibody that shows high specificity for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and its neoplastic precursor lesions. A PAM4-based serum immunoassay is able to detect 71% of early-stage patients and 91% with advanced disease. However, approximately 20% of patients diagnosed with chronic pancreatitis (CP) are also positive for circulating PAM4 antigen. The specificity of the PAM4 antibody is critical to the interpretation of the serum-based and immunohistochemical assays for detection of PDAC. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether PAM4 can differentiate PDAC from nonneoplastic lesions of the pancreas. DESIGN: Tissue microarrays of PDAC (N = 43) and surgical specimens from CP (N = 32) and benign cystic lesions (N = 19) were evaluated for expression of the PAM4 biomarker, MUC1, MUC4, CEACAM5/6, and CA19-9. RESULTS: PAM4 and monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) to MUC1, MUC4, CEACAM5/6, and CA19-9 were each reactive with the majority of PDAC cases; however, PAM4 was the only monoclonal antibody not to react with adjacent, nonneoplastic parenchyma. Although PAM4 labeled 19% (6 of 32) of CP specimens, reactivity was restricted to pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia associated with CP; inflamed tissues were negative in all cases. In contrast, MUC1, MUC4, CEACAM5/6, and CA19-9 were detected in 90%, 78%, 97%, and 100% of CP, respectively, with reactivity also present in nonneoplastic inflamed tissue. CONCLUSIONS: PAM4 was the only monoclonal antibody able to differentiate PDAC (and pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia precursor lesions) from benign, nonneoplastic tissues of the pancreas. These results suggest the use of PAM4 for evaluation of tissue specimens, and support its role as an immunoassay for detection of PDAC.
Authors: David V Gold; Michael Goggins; David E Modrak; Guy Newsome; Mengling Liu; Chanjuan Shi; Ralph H Hruban; David M Goldenberg Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2010-09-01 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Sara Raimondi; Albert B Lowenfels; Antonio M Morselli-Labate; Patrick Maisonneuve; Raffaele Pezzilli Journal: Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 3.043
Authors: Nils Habbe; Jan-Bart M Koorstra; Joshua T Mendell; G Johan Offerhaus; Ji Kon Ryu; Georg Feldmann; Michael E Mullendore; Michael G Goggins; Seung-Mo Hong; Anirban Maitra Journal: Cancer Biol Ther Date: 2009-02-03 Impact factor: 4.742
Authors: P Langer; P H Kann; V Fendrich; N Habbe; M Schneider; M Sina; E P Slater; J T Heverhagen; T M Gress; M Rothmund; D K Bartsch Journal: Gut Date: 2009-05-25 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Jonathan M Hernandez; Sarah M Cowgill; Sam Al-Saadi; Amy Collins; Sharona B Ross; Jennifer Cooper; Desireé Villadolid; Emmanuel Zervos; Alexander Rosemurgy Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2008-10-30 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Arne Westgaard; Aasa R Schjølberg; Milada Cvancarova; Tor J Eide; Ole Petter F Clausen; Ivar P Gladhaug Journal: Histopathology Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 5.087
Authors: Cole R Drifka; Jo Tod; Agnes G Loeffler; Yuming Liu; Gareth J Thomas; Kevin W Eliceiri; W John Kao Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2015-09-04 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Dannielle D Engle; Hervé Tiriac; Keith D Rivera; Arnaud Pommier; Sean Whalen; Tobiloba E Oni; Brinda Alagesan; Eun Jung Lee; Melissa A Yao; Matthew S Lucito; Benjamin Spielman; Brandon Da Silva; Christina Schoepfer; Kevin Wright; Brianna Creighton; Lauren Afinowicz; Kenneth H Yu; Robert Grützmann; Daniela Aust; Phyllis A Gimotty; Katherine S Pollard; Ralph H Hruban; Michael G Goggins; Christian Pilarsky; Youngkyu Park; Darryl J Pappin; Michael A Hollingsworth; David A Tuveson Journal: Science Date: 2019-06-21 Impact factor: 63.714