BACKGROUND: Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is associated with a dismal prognosis. The identification of cancer biomarkers can advance the possibility for early detection and better monitoring of tumor progression and/or response to therapy. The authors present results from the development of a serum-based, 4-protein (biglycan, myeloperoxidase, annexin-A6, and protein S100-A9) biomarker panel for EAC. METHODS: A vertically integrated, proteomics-based biomarker discovery approach was used to identify candidate serum biomarkers for the detection of EAC. Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry analysis was performed on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue samples that were collected from across the Barrett esophagus (BE)-EAC disease spectrum. The mass spectrometry-based spectral count data were used to guide the selection of candidate serum biomarkers. Then, the serum enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay data were validated in an independent cohort and were used to develop a multiparametric risk-assessment model to predict the presence of disease. RESULTS: With a minimum threshold of 10 spectral counts, 351 proteins were identified as differentially abundant along the spectrum of Barrett esophagus, high-grade dysplasia, and EAC (P<.05). Eleven proteins from this data set were then tested using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays in serum samples, of which 5 proteins were significantly elevated in abundance among patients who had EAC compared with normal controls, which mirrored trends across the disease spectrum present in the tissue data. By using serum data, a Bayesian rule-learning predictive model with 4 biomarkers was developed to accurately classify disease class; the cross-validation results for the merged data set yielded accuracy of 87% and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 93%. CONCLUSIONS: Serum biomarkers hold significant promise for the early, noninvasive detection of EAC.
BACKGROUND:Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is associated with a dismal prognosis. The identification of cancer biomarkers can advance the possibility for early detection and better monitoring of tumor progression and/or response to therapy. The authors present results from the development of a serum-based, 4-protein (biglycan, myeloperoxidase, annexin-A6, and protein S100-A9) biomarker panel for EAC. METHODS: A vertically integrated, proteomics-based biomarker discovery approach was used to identify candidate serum biomarkers for the detection of EAC. Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry analysis was performed on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue samples that were collected from across the Barrett esophagus (BE)-EAC disease spectrum. The mass spectrometry-based spectral count data were used to guide the selection of candidate serum biomarkers. Then, the serum enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay data were validated in an independent cohort and were used to develop a multiparametric risk-assessment model to predict the presence of disease. RESULTS: With a minimum threshold of 10 spectral counts, 351 proteins were identified as differentially abundant along the spectrum of Barrett esophagus, high-grade dysplasia, and EAC (P<.05). Eleven proteins from this data set were then tested using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays in serum samples, of which 5 proteins were significantly elevated in abundance among patients who had EAC compared with normal controls, which mirrored trends across the disease spectrum present in the tissue data. By using serum data, a Bayesian rule-learning predictive model with 4 biomarkers was developed to accurately classify disease class; the cross-validation results for the merged data set yielded accuracy of 87% and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 93%. CONCLUSIONS: Serum biomarkers hold significant promise for the early, noninvasive detection of EAC.
Authors: Henrik Ryberg; Jiyan An; Samuel Darko; Jonathan Llyle Lustgarten; Matt Jaffa; Vanathi Gopalakrishnan; David Lacomis; Merit Cudkowicz; Robert Bowser Journal: Muscle Nerve Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 3.217
Authors: S Ramel; B J Reid; C A Sanchez; P L Blount; D S Levine; K Neshat; R C Haggitt; P J Dean; K Thor; P S Rabinovitch Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 1992-04 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: William L Bigbee; Vanathi Gopalakrishnan; Joel L Weissfeld; David O Wilson; Sanja Dacic; Anna E Lokshin; Jill M Siegfried Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Jia Zhao; Andrew C Chang; Chen Li; Kerby A Shedden; Dafydd G Thomas; David E Misek; Arun Prasad Manoharan; Thomas J Giordano; David G Beer; David M Lubman Journal: Mol Cell Proteomics Date: 2006-07-08 Impact factor: 5.911
Authors: Thomas Grewal; Monira Hoque; James R W Conway; Meritxell Reverter; Mohamed Wahba; Syed S Beevi; Paul Timpson; Carlos Enrich; Carles Rentero Journal: Cell Adh Migr Date: 2017-01-06 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Alok K Shah; Gunter Hartel; Ian Brown; Clay Winterford; Renhua Na; Kim-Anh Lê Cao; Bradley A Spicer; Michelle A Dunstone; Wayne A Phillips; Reginald V Lord; Andrew P Barbour; David I Watson; Virendra Joshi; David C Whiteman; Michelle M Hill Journal: Mol Cell Proteomics Date: 2018-08-10 Impact factor: 5.911
Authors: Mette Ø Agerbaek; Marina A Pereira; Thomas M Clausen; Caroline Pehrson; Htoo Zarni Oo; Charlotte Spliid; Jamie R Rich; Vincent Fung; Francis Nkrumah; Janet Neequaye; Robert J Biggar; Steven J Reynolds; Giovanna Tosato; Sheeja T Pullarkat; Leona W Ayers; Thor G Theander; Mads Daugaard; Kishor Bhatia; Morten A Nielsen; Sam M Mbulaiteye; Ali Salanti Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2017-02-06 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Paula Moravkova; Darina Kohoutova; Stanislav Rejchrt; Jiri Cyrany; Jan Bures Journal: Gastroenterol Res Pract Date: 2016-01-06 Impact factor: 2.260