| Literature DB >> 29580231 |
Dan Zhao1, Xiaobing Wang2, Wei Zhang3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF15) has attracted much interest as a novel biomarker for epithelial ovarian carcinoma (EOC). Research focus has been directed at GDF15 as a diagnostic detection, while the prognostic determination of GDF15 in EOC patients remains to be clearly elucidated. The present study aimed to investigate GDF15 level relative to clinicopathological characters, chemoresponse, and clinical outcome of EOC patients.Entities:
Keywords: CA125; Chemotherapy; Diagnosis; Epithelial ovarian carcinoma; GDF15
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29580231 PMCID: PMC5870062 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-018-4246-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Fig. 1The level of serum GDF15 and CA125 in patients with EOC and healthy control. Serum GDF15 and CA125 in patients with EOC is significantly higher than that of others (P < 0.0001), notably, an elevated level of GDF15 was significantly presented in the stage I-II. Moreover, the gradual elevation in serum GDF15 and CA125 was clearly discernible, with significantly higher serum level in stage III -IV. Ovarian carcinoma refers to the group of all patients with ovarian cancer, Stage I-IV refers to the stage I to IV of ovarian cancer patients individually
The association of GDF15 and CA125 with the clinicopathologic parameters in the EOC patients
| n | GDF15(pg/mL) | CA125(U/L) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| median | IQRa | pb | median | IQRa | pb | ||
| Age | |||||||
| ≤ 50 y | 50 | 824.7 | 719.1 | 0.498 | 31.8 | 97.4 | 0.162 |
| > 50 y | 72 | 990.6 | 767.6 | 73.0 | 399.9 | ||
| Histology | |||||||
| Serous | 90 | 920.9 | 667.5 | 0.784 | 60.4 | 345.7 | 0.418 |
| Nonserous | 32 | 923.6 | 1397.8 | 35.2 | 231.8 | ||
| Grade | |||||||
| Low/Medium | 41 | 923.5 | 715.2 | 0.496 | 67.2 | 448.4 | 0.122 |
| High | 81 | 912.5 | 898.8 | 39.7 | 99.74 | ||
| FIGO | |||||||
| I/II | 13 | 604.6 | 719.0 | 0.088 | 22.9 | 19.1 | 0.005 |
| III/IV | 109 | 943.2 | 753.5 | 61.0 | 348.5 | ||
| LN metastasis | |||||||
| Yes | 69 | 994.0 | 748.1 | 0.033 | 107.3 | 427.9 | 0.005 |
| No | 53 | 784.7 | 770.6 | 29.1 | 107.5 | ||
a. IQR: the interquartile range
b. The p value was calculated using Mann-Whitney test method
Fig. 2Comparison of the diagnostic performance of serum GDF15 and CA125 for EOC. a Sensitivities and specificities of GDF15 and CA125 for the diagnosis of EOC were compared through the analysis of ROC curves. AUROC curve of serum GDF15 was larger than that of CA125 (P < 0.033), and the logistic model of GDF15 and CA125 significantly enhanced the efficacy of biomarkers. b A similar positive rate (present above the bar) of serum GDF15 (using the cut off value 519.6 pg/mL) was observed in patients with EOC with varying CA125 levels. GDF15+ means the GDF15 level is higher than the median value of the case group; CA125 positive means CA125 level is higher than 35 U/ml
The association of clinical character with preoperative serum levels of CA125 and GDF15 levels in 122 EOC patients
| Patient number | Total population | Debulking surgery | Chemotherapeutic response | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| optimal( | Suboptimal ( | Chemosensitive( | Chemoresistant( | |||||
| Age (mean ± s.d.) | 53.4 ± 11.1 | 52.6 ± 11.6 | 55.1 ± 9.7 | 0.251a | 52.4 ± 11.2 | 54.8 ± 10.9 | 0.302a | |
| Histology | ||||||||
| Serous | 90 (73.8%) | 61 | 29 | 0.836b | 66 | 24 | 0.765b | |
| Non-serous | 32 (26.2%) | 23 | 9 | 25 | 7 | |||
| FIGO | ||||||||
| Stage I/ II | 13 (10.7%) | 11 | 2 | 0.341b | 13 | 0 | 0.037b | |
| Stage III/IV | 109 (89.3%) | 73 | 36 | 78 | 31 | |||
| Grading | ||||||||
| Low/Medium | 41 (58.2%) | 29 | 12 | 0.911b | 32 | 9 | 0.686b | |
| High | 81 (41.8%) | 55 | 26 | 59 | 22 | |||
| Debulking surgery | ||||||||
| Optimal | 84 (68.9%) | 62 | 22 | 0.944b | ||||
| Suboptimal | 38 (31.1%) | 29 | 9 | |||||
| LN metastasis | ||||||||
| Yes | 69 (56.6%) | 43 | 26 | 0.114b | 48 | 21 | 0.213b | |
| No | 53 (43.4%) | 41 | 12 | 43 | 10 | |||
| CA125 (median,U/L) | 54.7 | 34.4 | 106.8 | 0.043c | 33.1 | 74.6 | 0.108 c | |
| GDF15 (median,pg/mL) | 920.9 | 933.3 | 915.4 | 0.596c | 824.2 | 1225.0 | 0.013 c | |
a. The p value was calculated using t-test; b. The p value was calculated using Chi-squared test; c. The p value was calculated using Mann-Whitney test
Univariate and Multivariate Cox regression analysis for PFS of patients with EOC
| Clinicopathologic characteristics | Univariate | P | Multivariate | P | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95% CI | HR | 95% CI | |||
| Age, y | ||||||
| ≤ 50 vs > 50 | 1.0268 | 0.668–1.578 | 0.901 | |||
| FIGO stage | ||||||
| I/II vs III/IV | 6.528 | 3.808–11.190 | 0.0001 | 3.521 | 1.044–11.880 | 0.044 |
| Tumor grade | ||||||
| Low/Medium vs High | 0.971 | 0.632–1.491 | 0.888 | |||
| Histology | ||||||
| Serous vs Nonserous | 0.616 | 0.385–0.984 | 0.062 | 0.626 | 0.354–1.105 | 0.108 |
| Residual tumor, cm | ||||||
| ≤ 1 vs > 1 | 1.670 | 1.032–2.703 | 0.016 | 1.380 | 0.872–2.185 | 0.171 |
| CA125 | ||||||
| Low vs High | 1.327 | 0.864–2.037 | 0.176 | |||
| GDF15 | ||||||
| Low vs High | 2.057 | 1.326–3.190 | 0.0004 | 1.660 | 1.065–2.586 | 0.026 |
HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval
Low/high group means lower or higher than the calculated median value of presurgerical serum GDF15 and CA125, respectively
Fig. 3The value of serum GDF15 in the prediction of progression-free survival of patients with EOC. Progression-free survival (PFS) were prepared and analyzed between two divided groups according to the median levels of serum GDF15 in patients before treatment. Patients with higher serum GDF15 demonstrated a trend for poorer PFS (P = 0.0004)