| Literature DB >> 28206963 |
Xiaobing Wang1, Zhaogang Yang2, Haimei Tian1, Yanfen Li1, Mo Li1, Wenya Zhao1, Chao Zhang1, Teng Wang1, Jing Liu1, Aili Zhang2, Di Shen3, Cuining Zheng3, Jun Qi3, Dan Zhao4, Junfeng Shi2,5, Liliang Jin6, Jianyu Rao1, Wei Zhang1.
Abstract
Macrophage inhibitory cytokine 1 (MIC-1/GDF15) has been characterized as a candidate biomarker for colorectal cancer (CRC) recently. However, the role of serum MIC-1 in screening patients with early stage CRC and monitoring therapeutic response have not been well-established, particularly in the combination with CEA for the screening and the prejudgment of occurrence with liver metastasis. In this study, we performed a retrospective blinded evaluation of 987 serum samples from 473 individuals with CRC, 25 with adenomatous polyps, and 489 healthy individuals using ELISA or immunoassay. The sensitivity of serum MIC-1 was 43.8% and 38.5% for CRC diagnosis and early diagnosis, respectively, which were independent of and comparatively higher than for CEA (36.6% and 27.3%) at comparable specificity. Serum MIC-1 after surgery were significantly elevated at the time of tumor recurrence, and notable increase were observed in 100% patients with liver metastasis. Besides the TNM classification and differentiation grade, MIC-1 was an independent prognostic factor contributing to overall survival. We conclude that MIC-1 can act as a candidate complementary biomarker for screening early-stage CRC by combination with CEA, and furthermore, for the first time, identify a promising prognostic indicator for monitoring recurrence with liver metastasis, to support strategies towards personalized therapy.Entities:
Keywords: biomarker; colorectal cancer; liver metastasis; prognosis; screening
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28206963 PMCID: PMC5421897 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.15279
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Figure 1The level of serum MIC-1 in patients with CRC and control
A. The level of serum MIC-1 in patients with CRC was compared with benign disease and healthy controls. Serum MIC-1 in patients with CRC is significantly higher than that in others (P<0.0001). And the gradual elevation in serum MIC-1 was clearly discernible, with significantly higher serum level in stage IV than in stage I–III (P<0.0001). B-D. The level of serum MIC-1 was compared between different clinical characters in the patients with CRC. The level of serum MIC-1 was significantly higher in patients with colon carcinoma and old age (B), depth of tumor invasion (C) and remote metastasis (D). E. The level of serum MIC-1 in CRC patients with liver metastasis was compared with other organ metastasis at time of diagnosis. MIC-1 levels are significantly higher in patients with liver metastasis (P=0.0069). In the box plots listed with Tukey's method, the lines represent 10th, 25th, median, 75th and 90th percentiles for each, and the data was statistically calculated using the Mann–Whitney U test.
Figure 2The diagnostic performance of serum MIC-1 and its combination with CEA for CRC
A. AUROC of serum MIC-1 was higher than that of CEA (P<0.001), and combination of MIC-1 and CEA would enhance the diagnostic performance significantly (P<0.001). B. The efficacy of serum MIC-1 in the detection of early stage CRC is significantly higher than CEA. ROC curve analysis showed the combination use of serum MIC-1 and serum CEA for discriminating early stage CRC will be valued in the screening of CRC.
Figure 3The value of serum MIC-1 in assessment of therapy response and surveillance of CRC recurrence after curative resection
A. The level of serum MIC-1 in CRC patients before surgery was compared with that of one month after surgical removal of primary tumors (n = 106). And in 20 patients with documented CRC recurrence, the level of serum MIC-1 were significantly elevated (median: 841.2 pg/mL vs 1747.0 pg/mL, mean + SD: 1017+832.1 pg/mL vs 1902+953.5 pg/mL; p<0.001). B. The level of serum MIC-1 in the patients with liver metastasis was compared with non-liver metastasis at the presence of tumor recurrence in 20 relapse patients. More highly elevated levels of serum MIC-1 was occurred 100% among 11 patients with liver metastasis, compared with MIC-1 levels in patients with non-liver metastasis (n=9).
Figure 4The value of serum MIC-1 in the prediction of CRC prognosis
Tumor-specific survival curves were prepared and analyzed between two divided groups according to the median levels of serum MIC-1 in patients before treatment (average, 43 months; range, 9–80 months; n=94). Patients with higher serum MIC-1 had a trend to poorer tumor-specific survival (median survival time: 34 vs 50 months, P<0.0001).
Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard modeling of factors associated with tumor-specific survival in CRC patient group (n = 94)
| Variable | Subset | Hazard Ratio | 95 % CI | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | >60/≤60 | 1.605 | 0.845 - 3.049 | 0.125 |
| Gender | Male/female | 0.939 | 0.503 - 1.751 | 0.842 |
| Tumor site | Colon/rectum | 1.017 | 0.549 -1.886 | 0.957 |
| Differentiation grade | Low / High-moderately | 3.882 | 1.705 - 8.837 | 0.042 |
| TNM stage | III-IV/I-II | 3.966 | 2.148 - 7.322 | 0.0001 |
| CEA level | High / Low | 2.117 | 1.144 - 3.917 | 0.017 |
| MIC-1 level | High / Low | 2.917 | 1.561 - 5.452 | 0.0005 |
| Differentiation grade | Low / High-moderately | 2.487 | 1.016-6.091 | 0.047 |
| TNM stage | III-IV / I-II | 3.508 | 1.636- 7.519 | 0.001 |
| CEA level | High / Low | 1.644 | 0.844 -3.202 | 0.146 |
| MIC-1 level | High / Low | 2.607 | 1.312-5.181 | 0.007 |
Characteristics of subjects with CRC and controls
| Variable | Serum samples (pre-operative) | Serum samples (post-operative) | Serum samples (relapse) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Healthy controls (n = 489) | benign disease (n=25) | CRC Cases (n=473) | Cases(n= 106) | Cases(n= 20) | |
| Gender(n) | |||||
| Male | 265(54.2%) | 11(44.0%) | 295(62.4%) | 69(66.3%) | 14(70.0%) |
| Female | 224(45.8%) | 14(56.0%) | 178(37.6%) | 37(33.7%) | 6(30.0%) |
| Age (years) | |||||
| ≤60 | 279(57.1%) | 11(44.0%) | 247(52.1%) | 65(61.3%) | 8(40.0%) |
| >60 | 210(42.9%) | 14(56.0%) | 226(47.9%) | 41(38.7%) | 12(60.0%) |
| Stage (n) | |||||
| I | 51(10.8%) | 7(6.6%) | |||
| II | 153(32.3%) | 38(35.8%) | 6(20.0%) | ||
| III | 201(42.5%) | 47(44.3%) | 12(60.0%) | ||
| IV | 68(14.4%) | 14(13.2%) | 2(10.0%) | ||