| Literature DB >> 33805513 |
Jie Hu1,2, Yi-Ning Wang1,2, Dan-Jun Song1,2, Jin-Peng Tan1,2, Ya Cao3, Jia Fan1,2,4, Zheng Wang1,2, Jian Zhou1,2,4.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) is a highly malignant cancer. More than 70% of patients are diagnosed at an advanced stage. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic value of plasma miR-21, miR-122, and CA19-9, hoping to establish a novel model to improve the accuracy for diagnosing iCCA.Entities:
Keywords: CA19-9; circulating biomarker; diagnosis; intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma; microRNA
Year: 2021 PMID: 33805513 PMCID: PMC8066692 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11040610
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) ISSN: 2075-4418
Figure 1Flow chart of study design. iCCA, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma; HCC-iCCA, combined hepatocellular carcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma; ROC, receiver operating characteristics.
Baseline characteristics and clinicopathological characteristics in iCCA patients
| Characteristics | iCCA Cohort | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Total iCCA ( | Radical Surgery ( | Liver Biopsy ( | |
| Age > 60 yrs | 215 (59.9%) | 158 (59.4%) | 57 (61.3%) |
| Male | 218 (60.7) | 160 (60.2%) | 58 (62.4%) |
| Diagnosed by specimen after | |||
| Radical surgery | 266 (74.1%) | 266 (100.0%) | − |
| Liver resection | 261 (72.7%) | 261 (98.1%) | − |
| Liver transplantation | 5 (1.4%) | 5 (1.9%) | − |
| Liver biopsy | 93 (25.9%) | − | 93 (100.0%) |
| Serum tumor biomarker, median (range) | |||
| CA19-9 (IU/mL) | 57.2 (2.0–10,000.0) | 40.4 (2.0–10,000.0) | 339.0 (2.0–10,000.0) |
| AFP (ng/mL) | 2.9 (0.9–19,998) | 2.9 (0.9–19,998) | 3.0 (0.9–1115.0) |
| Tumor characteristics | |||
| Tumor size (cm) | 5.44 (±2.96) | 4.87 (±2.78) | 7.09 (±2.90) |
| Multiple | 73 (20.3%) | 50 (18.8%) | 23 (24.7%) |
| Capsular invasion | − | 179 (67.3%) | − |
| Perineural invasion | − | 69 (25.9%) | − |
| MVI | − | 75 (28.2%) | − |
| AJCC Stage II–IV | 169 (47.1%) | 93 (35.0%) | 76 (81.7%) |
| Lymphatic metastasis | − | 42 (15.8%) | − |
iCCA, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma; CA19-9, Carbohydrate antigen19-9; AFP, alpha fetoprotein; AJCC, American Joint Committee on Cancer; MVI, Microvascular Invasion.
Figure 2Relative expression of plasma miR-21 and miR-122 in iCCA and control patients. (A,B), The relative expression of plasma miR-21 and miR-122 in iCCA patients was significantly higher than that in control (p < 0.001). (C) The relative expression of plasma miR-21 in iCCA patients with > 5cm tumor size was significantly higher than iCCA patients with ≤ 5 cm tumor size (p = 0.009). (D,E), The relative expression of plasma miR-21 and miR-122 in iCCA patients was significantly higher than that in healthy, benign liver lesions, and other liver malignancies (all p < 0.001). **, p < 0.01; ***, p < 0.001.
Clinical associations between the expressions of plasma miR-21/miR-122 and clinicopathological characteristics of iCCA patients received radical surgery
| Characteristics | iCCA Patients Receiving Radical Surgery ( | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plasma miR-21 | Plasma miR-122 | |||||
| Low ( | High ( |
| Low ( | High ( |
| |
| Tumor size, cm | 0.030 | 0.096 | ||||
| ≤5 cm | 94 | 77 | 79 | 92 | ||
| >5 cm | 39 | 56 | 54 | 41 | ||
| Tumor number | 0.754 | 1.000 | ||||
| Single | 107 | 109 | 108 | 108 | ||
| Multiple | 26 | 24 | 25 | 25 | ||
| Capsular invasion | ||||||
| No | 39 | 48 | 36 | 51 | ||
| Yes | 94 | 85 | 97 | 82 | ||
| Microvascular invasion | 0.496 | 0.683 | ||||
| No | 98 | 93 | 97 | 94 | ||
| Yes | 35 | 40 | 36 | 39 | ||
| Perineural invasion | ||||||
| No | 98 | 99 | 101 | 96 | ||
| Yes | 35 | 34 | 32 | 37 | ||
| Lymphatic metastasis | ||||||
| No | 112 | 112 | 107 | 117 | ||
| Yes | 21 | 21 | 26 | 16 | ||
| CA19-9 level, IU/mL | ||||||
| ≤ 34 | 63 | 63 | 64 | 62 | ||
| > 34 | 70 | 70 | 69 | 71 | ||
| AJCC Stage | 0.898 | 0.247 | ||||
| 0−I | 87 | 86 | 82 | 91 | ||
| II−III | 46 | 47 | 51 | 42 | ||
The low and high expression of miR-21 and miR-122 was defined by using median as the cut-off.
Diagnostic performance of circulating markers for iCCA in the training and validation cohorts.
| Markers | iCCA vs. Control | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training Cohort | Validation Cohort | |||||||||||
| AUC | NPV (%) | PPV (%) | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) |
| AUC | NPV (%) | PPV (%) | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) |
| |
| CA19-9 | 0.790 | 72.1 | 87.7 | 62.6 | 86.3 | <0.001 | 0.805 | 68.8 | 86.7 | 62.8 | 86.8 | <0.001 |
| miR-21 | 0.773 | 77.3 | 71.0 | 65.7 | 79.7 | <0.001 | 0.785 | 72.5 | 65.0 | 72.9 | 70.6 | <0.001 |
| miR-122 | 0.709 | 73.7 | 65.5 | 56.5 | 70.7 | <0.001 | 0.707 | 71.6 | 69.9 | 53.5 | 80.9 | <0.001 |
| 2-miR model * | 0.790 | 80.1 | 73.9 | 63.9 | 84.7 | <0.001 | 0.801 | 75.8 | 69.8 | 81.4 | 69.6 | <0.001 |
| 3-marker model # | 0.853 | 83.3 | 86.5 | 73.0 | 87.4 | <0.001 | 0.866 | 81.0 | 87.5 | 65.1 | 95.1 | <0.001 |
* Logit (p = iCCA) = −9.289 + (0.793 × miR-21) + (0.353 × miR-122); # Logit (p = iCCA) = −9.967 + (0.777 × miR-21) + (0.389 × miR-122) + (0.004 × CA19-9); AUC, Area Under Curve; CI, confidence interval; NPV, negative predictive value; PPV, positive predictive value.
Figure 3Diagnostic performance of CA19-9, miR-21, miR-122, 2-miR model and 3-marker model for iCCA. (A,B) The demonstration of CA19-9 level and 2-miR model in entire cohort by using two-dimension scatterplot and three-dimension scatterplot. iCCA patients (87.7%, 315/359) could be diagnosed by a combination of CA19-9 level and 2-miR model (gray shadow region). Red dotted line, cut-off value for CA19-9 (34 IU/mL); blue dotted line, cut-off value for 2-miR model (−0.494). (C) Diagnostic performance of five parameters for iCCA diagnosis in the training cohort. The AUC of three-marker model was significantly larger than CA19-9 (p = 0.009), miR-21 (p < 0.001), miR-122 (p < 0.001), and 2-miR model (p < 0.001). (D,E) Diagnostic performance of three-marker model in the validation cohort and entire cohort.
Figure 4Subgroup ROC analysis for iCCA diagnosis. (A–C) Diagnostic performance of five parameters in healthy control subgroup, benign liver lesions subgroup and other liver malignancies subgroup. Three-marker model also demonstrated a preferable diagnostic efficacy than other parameters in three subgroups (Tables S3–S5). (D,E) Diagnostic efficacy of three-marker model for iCCA with different AJCC stage. Three-marker model still possessed a good diagnostic efficacy even in early stage iCCA. (F) Diagnostic efficacy of two-miR model and three-marker model for iCCA in CA19-9negative cohort.
Diagnostic performance of circulating markers for iCCA patients with negative CA19-9.
| Markers | iCCA Cohort with Negative CA19-9 ( | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AUC (95% CI) | NPV (%) | PPV (%) | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) |
| |
| miR-21 | 0.771 (0.739–0.802) | 83.4 | 80.4 | 77.2 | 65.8 | <0.001 |
| miR-122 | 0.712 (0.677–0.725) | 81.8 | 82.1 | 63.8 | 74.1 | <0.001 |
| 2-miR model * | 0.794 (0.762–0.823) | 85.5 | 84.4 | 70.5 | 77.6 | <0.001 |
| 3-marker model # | 0.795 (0.763–0.824) | 85.9 | 85.1 | 76.5 | 72.7 | <0.001 |
* Logit (p = iCCA) = −9.289 + (0.793 × miR-21) + (0.353 × miR-122); # Logit (p = iCCA) = −9.967 + (0.777 × miR-21) + (0.389 × miR-122) + (0.004 × CA19-9); AUC, Area Under Curve; CI, confidence interval; NPV, negative predictive value; PPV, positive predictive value.