| Literature DB >> 26162539 |
Hanna Nyström1, Björn Tavelin2, Moa Björklund3, Peter Naredi4, Malin Sund3.
Abstract
Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is the best circulating tumour marker for colorectal liver metastasis (CLM) but has suboptimal sensitivity and specificity. Circulating type IV collagen (COLIV) is a new potential CLM marker. Here, COLIV and CEA were measured in patients with resectable CLM. COLIV levels were also related to the type of CLM. The prognostic value of these markers and the type of CLM on survival was evaluated. Preoperative plasma samples (n = 94) from patients (n = 85) with CLM undergoing liver resection were used. Seven patients underwent repeated liver resection. Samples from 118 healthy individuals served as control. Samples after liver resection (n = 27) were analysed and related to recurrence. COLIV and CEA levels were analysed, and the type of CLM was classified using paraffinated tissue. Results were analysed by logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. CLM patients had significantly elevated levels of COLIV compared to controls (p = 0.001). The sensitivity of COLIV was not better than CEA, but improved sensitivity for detecting CLM was observed with a combination of the two markers compared to using either marker alone (p = 0.001). Circulating COLIV was elevated in 81 % and CEA in 56 % of CLM patients at diagnosis, and high marker levels were related to poor survival. In follow-up samples (n = 27), patients with CLM recurrence (n = 14) had significantly elevated COLIV levels compared to patients without postoperative recurrence (n = 10) (p = 0.001). COLIV is a promising tumour marker for CLM and can possibly be used to detect postoperative CLM recurrence. The combination of COLIV and CEA is superior to either marker alone in detecting CLM.Entities:
Keywords: CEA; Circulating biomarkers; Colorectal liver metastases; Extracellular matrix; Type IV collagen
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26162539 PMCID: PMC4689748 DOI: 10.1007/s13277-015-3729-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Tumour Biol ISSN: 1010-4283
Fig. 1a Flowchart of patients included and excluded in the analysis of circulating type IV collagen in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CLM). b Flowchart of patients included and excluded in the analysis of growth pattern of CLM
Patient characteristics
| Main cohort | Subcohort I | Subcohort II | Controls ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preoperative sample ( | Postoperative sample ( | No chemotherapy ( | ||
| Gender (M/F) | 63/31 | 18/9 | 18/10 | 58/60 |
| Age (mean ± SD) | 65.3 ± 8.6 | 66.2 ± 7.5 | 69.9 ± 8.3 | 54.6 ± 10.3 |
| CRC location (colon/rectum) | 50/44 | 15/12 | 15/13 | – |
| T stage CRC | ||||
| 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | – |
| 2 | 7 | 1 | 4 | |
| 3 | 44 | 12 | 15 | |
| 4 | 20 | 5 | 2 | |
| Unknown | 20 | 8 | 4 | |
| N stage CRC | ||||
| N0 | 23 | 8 | 10 | – |
| N1 | 23 | 5 | 10 | |
| N2 | 33 | 8 | 7 | |
| Unknown | 15 | 6 | 1 | |
| Type IV collagen (ng/ml; mean ± SD) | 170.1 ± 72.5 | – | 155.4 ± 80.6 | 104.4 ± 33.0 |
| Recurrent CLM | – | 214.0 ± 145.4 | – | – |
| Disease-free | – | 82.4 ± 13.7 | – | – |
| CEA (ng/ml; median, range) | 7.6 (0.8–2073) | 7.7 (1.2–200) | 11.7 (0.8–96) | 1.3 (0.2–4.2) |
| Time interval CRC-CLM in months (median, range) | 0 (0–30) | 0 (0–30) | 10 (0–30) | – |
| Synchronous/metachronous CLMa | 62/32 | 20/7 | 9/19 | – |
| Type of CLM | ||||
| Pushing | 36 | 8 | 15 | – |
| Desmoplastic | 20 | 12 | 8 | |
| Replacement | 2 | 0 | 1 | |
| Mixed | 9 | 2 | 4 | |
| Not classifiable | 16 | 2 | 0 | |
| Unknown | 11 | 3 | – | |
aSynchronous CLM here defined as CLM diagnosed within 6 months from diagnosis of primary tumour
Oncological treatment
| CLM ( | Subcohort I ( | |
|---|---|---|
| Radiotherapy | 27 of 44 | 8 of 12 |
| Chemotherapy CRC | ||
| None | 26 | 7 |
| Neoadjuvant | 15 | 8 |
| Adjuvant | 38 | 10 |
| Conversion therapy | 12 | 1 |
| Unknown | 3 | 1 |
| Chemotherapy CLM | ||
| None | 30 | 6 |
| Neoadjuvant | 41 | 17 |
| Adjuvant | 8 | 2 |
| Conversion therapy | 12 | 1 |
| Unknown | 3 | 1 |
| Biological treatment | ||
| Bevacizumab | 3 | 1 |
| Cetuximab | 5 | 3 |
Fig. 2a Circulating type IV collagen in healthy controls compared to preoperative samples from patients with CLM. Patients with CLM had significantly higher levels of circulating type IV collagen (170.2 ± 72.5 ng/ml) compared to controls (104.3 ± 33 ng/ml) (***p = 0.001). b Circulating levels of type IV collagen in patients with a postoperative follow-up sample 6–42 months after liver surgery for CLM. Patients with no recurrence (n = 10), recurrence of CLM (n = 14) or with a non-liver recurrence (n = 3). Patients with recurrent CLM had significantly higher type IV collagen levels (214 ± 145 ng/ml) compared to the patients with no recurrence (82.3 ± 13.7 ng/ml) (***p = 0.001). The circles represent the outliers/ samples that are outliers outside of the whiskers
Fig. 3a ROC curve analysis of type IV collagen, CEA and a combination of both markers. Based on logistic regression, the area under the curve (AUC) was compared and the combination of markers is significantly better then CEA or type IV collagen alone (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). b Comparison of percentage of CLM patients with elevated preoperative levels of type IV collagen (COL IV) and CEA and percentage of patients with at least one marker elevated. Type IV collagen levels were increased above cutoff (115 ng/ml) in 81 % of patients with CLM compared to only 56 % of patients presenting with elevated levels of CEA (cutoff 5 ng/ml). Ninety-three percent of the patients presented with at least one of the markers above these levels
Area under the curve (AUC) for collagen IV, CEA and the combination of collagen IV + CEA
| Marker | AUC | Standard error |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Collagen IV | 0.806 | 0.31 | – |
| CEA | 0.926 | 0.19 | – |
| Collagen IV + CEA | 0.955 | 0.14 | 0.001 and <0.001* |
*p values for comparison of AUC-combined marker versus AUC for CEA and collagen IV, respectively
Specificity, sensitivity, cutoff and accuracy for the calculated values based on the cohort for type IV collagen (COL IV) and the responding values when using the clinically recommended cutoff for CEA
| 1-specificity (false positive rate) | Sensitivity (true positive rate) | Cutoff (ng/ml) | Accuracy | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CEA calculated | 9.3 | 80.7 | 2.8 | 0.86 |
| CEA clinical | 0.0 | 56.4 | 5.0 | 0.77 |
| COL IV calculated | 34.7 | 80.9 | 115 | 0.72 |
Fig. 4a Survival analysis of patients at a median follow-up time of 26.4 months. Grouped as CEA and type IV collagen both below median value (none), one tumour marker above median (1) and both markers above median (2). Patients with both markers above median display the poorest survival. b Analysis of survival of patients with the pushing versus the desmoplastic growth pattern. Patients with a pushing type of CLM have significantly poorer survival when compared to the desmoplastic type (p = 0.011)