| Literature DB >> 31019846 |
Benjamin K Ghiam1, Liya Xu2, Jesse L Berry3,4.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Retinoblastoma (Rb) is the most common primary intraocular cancer in children. Unlike with most solid tumors, direct biopsy is contraindicated due to risk of tumor dissemination. However, recent therapeutic techniques have allowed for the safe extraction of aqueous humor (AH) from eyes undergoing therapy, providing the unique opportunity to use AH as a liquid biopsy for Rb. Although the extraction of AH in Rb eyes undergoing therapy is new, the consideration of whether there are tumor biomarkers in the AH is not. The current manuscript is a systematic review of all studies that have examined biomarkers in the AH of Rb eyes. The authors hypothesized that AH sampling and analysis of tumor biomarkers may have new clinical relevance for the diagnosis, prognosis, and/or management of Rb.Entities:
Keywords: aqueous humor; biomarkers; biopsy; retinoblastoma
Year: 2019 PMID: 31019846 PMCID: PMC6469575 DOI: 10.1167/tvst.8.2.13
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol ISSN: 2164-2591 Impact factor: 3.283
FigureArticle selection process based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA).
Included Articles with Core Characteristics
| Author(s), Date | Type of Marker | Number of Rb Eyes | Rb AH Marker Mean | Rb AH Marker Range |
| Dias et al. 1971 | LDH (U/L) | 4 | 2452.5 | 1,800–3,250 |
| Kabak and Romano 1975 | LDH (U/L) | 4 | 542.5 | 56–1,832 |
| Piro et al. 1978 | LDH (U/L) | 23 | 1886 | 10–15,920 |
| Abramson et al. 1979 | LDH (U/L) | 24 | 1825 | 10–15,920 |
| Dias 1979 | LDH (U/L) | 24 | 2429.75 | 1,220–3,650 |
| Dias 1979 | LDH (U/L) | 7 | 1,460–3,400 | |
| Das et al. 1983 | LDH (U/L) | 14 | ||
| Dias 1985 | LDH (U/L) | 5 | 3656 | 1,660–7,000 |
| Dayal et al. 1985 | LDH (U/L) | 20 | ||
| Singh et al. 1991 | LDH isoenzymes | 15 | ||
| Mukhopadhyay et al. 2008 | LDH (U/L) | 21 | 3396.9 | 863–4819 |
| Shehata et al. 2016 | LDH (U/L) | 88 | 591.34 | 325.25–1,270 |
| Survivin (pg/mg protein) | 31.84 | 17.63–52.70 | ||
| TGF-β (pg/mg protein) | 90.79 | 17.63–49.32 | ||
| Abramson et al. 1989 | NSE (ng/mL) | 17 | 3829 | 619–60,000 |
| Comoy et al. 1990 | NSE (ng/mL) | 7 | 83–17,900 | |
| Nakajima et al. 1986 | NSE isoenzymes | 12 | ||
| Shine et al. 1990 | NSE isoenzymes | 10 | ||
| Wu et al. 1997 | NSE isoenzymes | 21 | ||
| Shehata et al. 2010 | Survivin (pg/mg protein) | 21 | 28.27 | 17.63–49.32 |
| Mendelsohn et al. 1998 | Uric acid (μ/mL) | 38 | 18.3 | 4.72–31 |
| Xanthine (μ/mL) | 2.43 | 0.27–8.03 | ||
| Dias 1979 | Protein content (g/100 mL) | 2 | 1.15 | 0.9–1.4 |
| Hadjistilianou et al. 2012 | Protein content (mg/mL) | 8 | 3.44 | 0.89–6.9 |
| Cheng et al. 2017 | Protein analysis | 10 | ||
| Cheng et al. 2017 | Cytokines/chemokines | 35 | ||
| Abramson et al. 1978 | Catecholamine metabolites | 5 | ||
| Abramson et al. 1993 | Aromatic amino acids (catechols) | |||
| Berry et al. 2017 | Nucleic acid analysis | 3 | ||
| Berry et al. 2018 | Genomic analysis |
Quantitative Aqueous Humor Marker Data with Clinocopathological Correlationsa
| Marker | Studies | Rb, | Ctl, | Rb Range | Control Range |
| LDH | Dias et al. 1971 | 245 | 206 | 10–15,920 U/L | 0–420 U/L |
| NSE | Abramson et al. 1989 | 67 | 19 | 83–60,000 ng/mL | 5 ± 7.7 |
| Survivin | Shehata et al. 2010 | 109 | 97 | 17.63–52.70 pg/mg | 6.5–38 pg/mg |
| TGF-β | Shehata et al. 2016 | 88 | 80 | 40.54–166.86 pg/mg | 11.22–52.14 pg/mg |
| Uric acid | Mendelsohn et al. 1998 | 38 | 17 | 4.72–31 μg/mL | 6.91–8.43 μg/mL |
| Xanthine | Mendelsohn et al. 1998 | 38 | 17 | 0.27–8.03 μg/mL | 0.37–0.49 μg/mL |
| Protein content | Dias 1979 | 55 | 40 | 0.89–6.9 mg/mL | 0–0.24 mg/mL |
| Nucleic acid (cfDNA) | Berry et al. 2017 | 32 | 3 | 0.084–56 ng/μL | 0.05–0.16 ng/μL |
| Total eyes | 463 | 302 |
RE, Reese Ellsworth classification; IFN-γ, interferon gamma; PIGF-1, placenta growth factor 1; VEGF-A, vascular endothelial growth factor A; β-NGF, nerve growth factor beta; HGF, hepatocyte growth factor; EGF, epidermal growth factor; FGF-2, fibroblast growth factor 2; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.
Extended
| Author(s), Date | Ctl Eyes | Ctl AH Mean | Ctl AH Range | Quality Rating | |
| Dias et al. 197121 | 33 | 0–350 | Fair | ||
| Kabak and Romano 197532 | 7 | 24 | 0–99 | Fair | |
| Piro et al. 197833 | Fair | ||||
| Abramson et al. 197934 | 34 | 47 | 10–167 | <0.02 | Good |
| Dias 197922 | Fair | ||||
| Dias 197923 | 6 | 180–420 | Good | ||
| Das et al. 198335 | 10 | <0.01 | Fair | ||
| Dias 198549 | Fair | ||||
| Dayal et al. 198536 | Good | ||||
| Singh et al. 199137 | 15 | Good | |||
| Mukhopadhyay et al. 200838 | 21 | 90.6 | 48–146 | <0.001 | Good |
| Shehata et al. 201624 | 80 | 62.18 | 19.38–181.25 | <0.01 | Good |
| 20.2 | 6.5–38 | <0.01 | |||
| 23.07 | 11.22–52.14 | <0.01 | |||
| Abramson et al. 198941 | Fair | ||||
| Comoy et al. 199026 | 19 | 5.0 | Fair | ||
| Nakajima et al. 198642 | Good | ||||
| Shine et al. 199040 | Good | ||||
| Wu et al. 199739 | Good | ||||
| Shehata et al. 201043 | 17 | 20.57 | 6.5–38 | <0.05 | Good |
| Mendelsohn et al. 199844 | 17 | 7.67 | 6.91–8.43 | <0.05 | Good |
| 0.43 | 0.37–0.49 | <0.05 | |||
| Dias 197931 | 10 | 0–0.17 | Good | ||
| Hadjistilianou et al. 201225 | 10 | 0.19 | 0.16–0.24 | <0.01 | Good |
| Cheng et al. 201727 | Good | ||||
| Cheng et al. 201745 | 20 | <0.05 | Fair | ||
| Abramson et al. 197847 | Fair | ||||
| Abramson et al. 199346 | Fair | ||||
| Berry et al. 201728 | Good | ||||
| Berry et al. 201829 | Good |
Extended
| Marker | Take-Home Points and Clinicopathological Correlations |
| LDH | Nonspecific indicator of Rb tumor presence Possible correlations with tumor invasion in anterior chamber, increased duration of tumor, and late stage (RE IV and V) |
| NSE | Significant histopathological correlation with tumor invasion in anterior chamber ( Possible index of remission |
| Survivin | Significantly elevated levels in Rb AH, compared to control AH ( Higher levels in late stages (RE III, IV, and V; ( Significant correlation with optic nerve invasion ( Significant reduction of serum concentrations after treatment ( Proposed cutoff value of AH survivin = 25.2 pg/mg (62% sensitivity, 100% specificity) |
| TGF-β | Significantly elevated levels in Rb AH, compared to controls AH ( Statistically significant higher concentration of AH TGF-β1 in undifferentiated tumors ( Proposed cutoff value of AH TGF-β1 = 39.8 pg/mg (100% sensitivity, 90% specificity) |
| Uric acid | Significantly elevated AH concentrations compared to controls ( |
| Xanthine | Significantly elevated AH concentrations compared to controls ( |
| Protein content | Significantly elevated AH protein concentrations compared to controls ( Significantly decreased protein concentration in Rb eyes following treatment with intra-arterial melphalan, compared to nontreated Rb eyes ( IL-6, IL-7, IL-8, IFN-γ, PIGF-1, VEGF-A, β-NGF, HGF, EGF, and FGF-2 were significantly higher in the Rb AH, compared to controls ( PEDF (downregulated) and STRA6 (upregulated) as possible candidates in targeted therapy for Rb. |
| Nucleic acid (cfDNA) | Tumor-specific DNA is present in the AH of Rb eyes and can be safely extracted and evaluated without undergoing enucleation The AH CfDNA concentration in 8 Rb eyes ranged from 0.084 to 56 ng/μL (eyes receiving melphalan treatment, mean: 0.2 ng/μL; Eyes with large untreated tumors that underwent primary enucleation, mean: 43.6 ng/μL) Median concentration of DNA in control AH was 0.15 ng/μL (mean, 0.12; range, 0.05–0.16 ng/ul). Genomic evaluation of Rb AH samples demonstrated the presence of any RB SCNA in enucleated eyes was 12/13 (92%), whereas the fraction in salvaged eyes was 6/16 (38%) ( Presence of 6p gain in the AH was associated with a ten-fold increased odds of an eye requiring enucleation ( |