BACKGROUND/AIMS: Plasma chromogranin A (CgA) is the most widely used biochemical biomarker in the diagnostic workup and follow-up of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendo- crine neoplasms (GEP-NENs). Herein, we assessed the clinical utility of CgA in diagnosing and monitoring a large series of GEP-NENs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 181 GEP-NEN patients (87 males, 94 females) with pancreatic (n = 81) and gastrointestinal neoplasms (n = 100) were included; 99 patients had grade (G)1 NENs (Ki-67 ≤2%), 57 G2 NENs (Ki-67 3-20%) and 25 G3 NENs (Ki-67 >20%); 81 patients had tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage I, 14 stage II, 17 stage III and 69 stage IV cancer. For every patient, CgA values were assessed at diagnosis and during follow-up. RESULTS: At diagnosis, the CgA values were above the upper reference limit in 148 patients (82%); the median CgA levels were significantly higher in functioning than in nonfunctioning tumors (295 vs. 43 U/l; p = 0.0001) as well as significantly higher in patients with metastases than in those without metastases (324.5 vs. 42 U/l; p = 0.0001). In logistic regression analysis, baseline CgA levels were significantly associated with Ki-67 index (p < 0.0001) and TNM stage (p < 0.0001) independently of the age and sex of the patient and the primary site of the tumor. The overall 5- and 10-year survival rates were 74 and 64.5%, respectively. A low Ki-67 index, the type of treatment and an early CgA decrease after treatment were positively correlated with the survival rate. After radical surgery, 15/95 patients relapsed, and an increase in CgA values anticipated the clinical and objective disease recurrence after a period of 9-12 months. CONCLUSIONS: In GEP-NENs, plasma CgA has a significant prognostic relevance.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Plasma chromogranin A (CgA) is the most widely used biochemical biomarker in the diagnostic workup and follow-up of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendo- crine neoplasms (GEP-NENs). Herein, we assessed the clinical utility of CgA in diagnosing and monitoring a large series of GEP-NENs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 181 GEP-NEN patients (87 males, 94 females) with pancreatic (n = 81) and gastrointestinal neoplasms (n = 100) were included; 99 patients had grade (G)1 NENs (Ki-67 ≤2%), 57 G2 NENs (Ki-67 3-20%) and 25 G3 NENs (Ki-67 >20%); 81 patients had tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage I, 14 stage II, 17 stage III and 69 stage IV cancer. For every patient, CgA values were assessed at diagnosis and during follow-up. RESULTS: At diagnosis, the CgA values were above the upper reference limit in 148 patients (82%); the median CgA levels were significantly higher in functioning than in nonfunctioning tumors (295 vs. 43 U/l; p = 0.0001) as well as significantly higher in patients with metastases than in those without metastases (324.5 vs. 42 U/l; p = 0.0001). In logistic regression analysis, baseline CgA levels were significantly associated with Ki-67 index (p < 0.0001) and TNM stage (p < 0.0001) independently of the age and sex of the patient and the primary site of the tumor. The overall 5- and 10-year survival rates were 74 and 64.5%, respectively. A low Ki-67 index, the type of treatment and an early CgA decrease after treatment were positively correlated with the survival rate. After radical surgery, 15/95 patients relapsed, and an increase in CgA values anticipated the clinical and objective disease recurrence after a period of 9-12 months. CONCLUSIONS: In GEP-NENs, plasma CgA has a significant prognostic relevance.
Authors: Jonathan R Strosberg; Thorvardur R Halfdanarson; Andrew M Bellizzi; Jennifer A Chan; Joseph S Dillon; Anthony P Heaney; Pamela L Kunz; Thomas M O'Dorisio; Riad Salem; Eva Segelov; James R Howe; Rodney F Pommier; Kari Brendtro; Mohammad A Bashir; Simron Singh; Michael C Soulen; Laura Tang; Jerome S Zacks; James C Yao; Emily K Bergsland Journal: Pancreas Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 3.327
Authors: Roberta Elisa Rossi; Jorge Garcia-Hernandez; Tim Meyer; Christina Thirlwell; Jennifer Watkins; Nicholas Guy Martin; Martyn Evan Caplin; Christos Toumpanakis Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2015-06
Authors: Marianne E Pavel; Alexandria T Phan; Edward M Wolin; Beloo Mirakhur; Nilani Liyanage; Susan Pitman Lowenthal; George A Fisher; Aaron I Vinik Journal: Oncologist Date: 2018-10-24
Authors: Jason Whitt; Won S Hong; Rahul R Telange; Chee Paul Lin; James Bibb; David J Beebe; Herbert Chen; Renata Jaskula-Sztul Journal: Cancer Gene Ther Date: 2020-02-07 Impact factor: 5.987
Authors: Alessandra Pulvirenti; Deepthi Rao; Caitlin A Mcintyre; Mithat Gonen; Laura H Tang; David S Klimstra; Martin Fleisher; Lakshmi V Ramanathan; Diane Reidy-Lagunes; Peter J Allen Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2018-10-23 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Martina Hinterleitner; Bence Sipos; Verena Wagner; Julia M Grottenthaler; Ulrich M Lauer; Lars Zender; Clemens Hinterleitner Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-05-11 Impact factor: 6.639