Y F Song1, Z B Xu2, X J Zhu2, X Tao3, J L Liu1, F L Gao1, C L Wu2, B Song4, Q Lin5. 1. Clinical Laboratory, People's Hospital Affiliated to Fujian University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 602 Bayiqi Road, Fuzhou, 350001, China. 2. Medical Oncology, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, 29 Xinquan Road, Fuzhou, 350001, China. 3. Public Health Medicine, People's Hospital Affiliated to Fujian University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 602 Bayiqi Road, Fuzhou, 350001, China. 4. Respiratory Medicine, The Affiliated Mindong Hospital of Fujian Medical University, 89 Heshan Road, Fuan, 355000, China. mdyysongbin@163.com. 5. Clinical Laboratory, People's Hospital Affiliated to Fujian University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 602 Bayiqi Road, Fuzhou, 350001, China. fjlinqing@126.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the sensitivity and specificity of serum Cyr61 as a potential biomarker for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) and to assess the association between serum Cyr61 level and CRC clinicopathological status. METHODS: We used an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to measure serum Cyr61 in patients with CRC, patients with colorectal adenomas, and healthy controls. We also analyzed the relationship between serum Cyr61 and clinicopathological features of CRC patients. The levels of serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) were quantified using the Roche Cobas 6000 Analyzer. The sensitivity and specificity of Cyr61, CEA, CA19-9 and CEA + CA19-9 were evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. RESULTS: The serum level of Cyr61 was significantly increased in CRC patients compared with colorectal adenoma patients and healthy controls (p < 0.001). Furthermore, the area under the ROC curve for Cyr61 was 0.935 (95 % confidence interval 0.902-0.968), higher than that for CEA + CA19-9 (0.827, 95 % confidence interval: 0.783-0.871). Use of a Cyr61 cutoff value of 92.0 pg/mL allowed distinguishing CRC patients and healthy controls with a sensitivity of 83 % and a specificity of 97 %. Among CRC patients, an elevated level of serum Cyr61 was significantly associated with more advanced TNM stage (p < 0.0042), lymph node metastasis (p < 0.0088), and vascular invasion (p = 0.0027). CONCLUSION: Cyr61 has potential as a serum biomarker for the diagnosis of CRC and for assessment of the clinicopathological status of CRC.
PURPOSE: To determine the sensitivity and specificity of serum Cyr61 as a potential biomarker for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) and to assess the association between serum Cyr61 level and CRC clinicopathological status. METHODS: We used an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to measure serum Cyr61 in patients with CRC, patients with colorectal adenomas, and healthy controls. We also analyzed the relationship between serum Cyr61 and clinicopathological features of CRC patients. The levels of serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) were quantified using the Roche Cobas 6000 Analyzer. The sensitivity and specificity of Cyr61, CEA, CA19-9 and CEA + CA19-9 were evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. RESULTS: The serum level of Cyr61 was significantly increased in CRC patients compared with colorectal adenomapatients and healthy controls (p < 0.001). Furthermore, the area under the ROC curve for Cyr61 was 0.935 (95 % confidence interval 0.902-0.968), higher than that for CEA + CA19-9 (0.827, 95 % confidence interval: 0.783-0.871). Use of a Cyr61 cutoff value of 92.0 pg/mL allowed distinguishing CRC patients and healthy controls with a sensitivity of 83 % and a specificity of 97 %. Among CRC patients, an elevated level of serum Cyr61 was significantly associated with more advanced TNM stage (p < 0.0042), lymph node metastasis (p < 0.0088), and vascular invasion (p = 0.0027). CONCLUSION:Cyr61 has potential as a serum biomarker for the diagnosis of CRC and for assessment of the clinicopathological status of CRC.
Authors: D Xie; C W Miller; J O'Kelly; K Nakachi; A Sakashita; J W Said; J Gornbein; H P Koeffler Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2001-01-31 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Alicia M Hidalgo-Estévez; Konstantinos Stamatakis; Marta Jiménez-Martínez; Ricardo López-Pérez; Manuel Fresno Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2020-04-29 Impact factor: 5.810