I M Modlin1, M Kidd2, M Falconi3, P L Filosso4, A Frilling5, A Malczewska6, C Toumpanakis7, G Valk8, K Pacak9, L Bodei10, K E Öberg11. 1. Department of Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, USA. 2. Wren Laboratories, Branford, USA. 3. Department of Surgery, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy. 4. Department of Surgical Sciences, Università degli Studi di Torino, Turin, Italy. 5. Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK. 6. Department of Endocrinology and Neuroendocrine Tumours, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland. 7. Neuroendocrine Tumour Unit, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK. 8. Department of Endocrine Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands. 9. Medical Neuroendocrinology, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, USA. 10. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA. 11. Department of Endocrine Oncology, University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden. Electronic address: kjell.oberg@medsci.uu.se.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Biomarkers are key tools in cancer management. In neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), Chromogranin A (CgA) was considered acceptable as a biomarker. We compared the clinical efficacy of a multigenomic blood biomarker (NETest) to CgA over a 5-year period. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An observational, prospective, cross-sectional, multicenter, multinational, comparative cohort assessment. Cohort 1: NETest evaluation in NETs (n = 1684) and cancers, benign diseases, controls (n = 731). Cohort 2: (n = 1270): matched analysis of NETest/CgA in a sub-cohort of NETs (n = 922) versus other diseases and controls (n = 348). Disease status was assessed by response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST). NETest measurement: qPCR [upper limit of normal (ULN: 20)], CgA (EuroDiagnostica, ULN: 108 ng/ml). STATISTICS: Mann-Whitney U-test, AUROC, chi-square and McNemar' test. RESULTS: Cohort 1: NETest diagnostic accuracy was 91% (P < 0.0001) and identified pheochromocytomas (98%), small intestine (94%), pancreas (91%), lung (88%), gastric (80%) and appendix (79%). NETest reflected grading: G1: 40 ± 1, G2 (50 ± 1) and G3 (52 ± 1). Locoregional disease levels were lower (38 ± 1) than metastatic (52 ± 1, P < 0.0001). NETest accurately stratified RECIST-assessed disease extent: no disease (21 ± 1), stable (43 ± 2), progressive (62 ± 2) (P < 0.0001). NETest concordance with imaging (CT/MRI/68Ga-SSA-PET) 91%. Presurgery, all NETs (n = 153) were positive (100%). After palliative R1/R2 surgery (n = 51) all (100%) remained elevated. After curative R0-surgery (n = 102), NETest levels were normal in 81 (70%) with no recurrence at 2 years. In the 31 (30%) with elevated levels, 25 (81%) recurred within 2 years. Cohort #2: NETest diagnostic accuracy was 87% and CgA 54% (P < 0.0001). NETest was more accurate than CgA for grading (chi-square = 7.7, OR = 18.5) and metastatic identification (chi-square = 180, OR = 8.4). NETest identified progressive disease (95%) versus CgA (57%, P < 0.0001). Imaging concordance for NETest was 91% versus CgA (46%) (P < 0.0001). Recurrence prediction after surgery was NETest-positive in >94% versus CgA 11%. CONCLUSION: NETest accurately diagnoses NETs and is an effective surrogate marker for imaging, grade, metastases and disease status compared to CgA. A multigenomic liquid biopsy is an accurate biomarker of NET disease.
BACKGROUND: Biomarkers are key tools in cancer management. In neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), Chromogranin A (CgA) was considered acceptable as a biomarker. We compared the clinical efficacy of a multigenomic blood biomarker (NETest) to CgA over a 5-year period. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An observational, prospective, cross-sectional, multicenter, multinational, comparative cohort assessment. Cohort 1: NETest evaluation in NETs (n = 1684) and cancers, benign diseases, controls (n = 731). Cohort 2: (n = 1270): matched analysis of NETest/CgA in a sub-cohort of NETs (n = 922) versus other diseases and controls (n = 348). Disease status was assessed by response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST). NETest measurement: qPCR [upper limit of normal (ULN: 20)], CgA (EuroDiagnostica, ULN: 108 ng/ml). STATISTICS: Mann-Whitney U-test, AUROC, chi-square and McNemar' test. RESULTS: Cohort 1: NETest diagnostic accuracy was 91% (P < 0.0001) and identified pheochromocytomas (98%), small intestine (94%), pancreas (91%), lung (88%), gastric (80%) and appendix (79%). NETest reflected grading: G1: 40 ± 1, G2 (50 ± 1) and G3 (52 ± 1). Locoregional disease levels were lower (38 ± 1) than metastatic (52 ± 1, P < 0.0001). NETest accurately stratified RECIST-assessed disease extent: no disease (21 ± 1), stable (43 ± 2), progressive (62 ± 2) (P < 0.0001). NETest concordance with imaging (CT/MRI/68Ga-SSA-PET) 91%. Presurgery, all NETs (n = 153) were positive (100%). After palliative R1/R2 surgery (n = 51) all (100%) remained elevated. After curative R0-surgery (n = 102), NETest levels were normal in 81 (70%) with no recurrence at 2 years. In the 31 (30%) with elevated levels, 25 (81%) recurred within 2 years. Cohort #2: NETest diagnostic accuracy was 87% and CgA 54% (P < 0.0001). NETest was more accurate than CgA for grading (chi-square = 7.7, OR = 18.5) and metastatic identification (chi-square = 180, OR = 8.4). NETest identified progressive disease (95%) versus CgA (57%, P < 0.0001). Imaging concordance for NETest was 91% versus CgA (46%) (P < 0.0001). Recurrence prediction after surgery was NETest-positive in >94% versus CgA 11%. CONCLUSION: NETest accurately diagnoses NETs and is an effective surrogate marker for imaging, grade, metastases and disease status compared to CgA. A multigenomic liquid biopsy is an accurate biomarker of NET disease.
Authors: Erik von Elm; Douglas G Altman; Matthias Egger; Stuart J Pocock; Peter C Gøtzsche; Jan P Vandenbroucke Journal: Lancet Date: 2007-10-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Lisa Bodei; Heiko Schöder; Richard P Baum; Ken Herrmann; Jonathan Strosberg; Martyn Caplin; Kjell Öberg; Irvin M Modlin Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Kjell Oberg; Irvin M Modlin; Wouter De Herder; Marianne Pavel; David Klimstra; Andrea Frilling; David C Metz; Anthony Heaney; Dik Kwekkeboom; Jonathan Strosberg; Timothy Meyer; Steven F Moss; Kay Washington; Edward Wolin; Eric Liu; James Goldenring Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: J Capdevila; O Casanovas; R Salazar; D Castellano; A Segura; P Fuster; J Aller; R García-Carbonero; P Jimenez-Fonseca; E Grande; J P Castaño Journal: Oncogene Date: 2016-09-19 Impact factor: 9.867
Authors: Mark J C van Treijen; Dennis van der Zee; Birthe C Heeres; Femke C R Staal; Menno R Vriens; Lisette J Saveur; Wieke H M Verbeek; Catharina M Korse; Monique Maas; Gerlof D Valk; Margot E T Tesselaar Journal: Neuroendocrinology Date: 2020-06-03 Impact factor: 4.914
Authors: Paweł Komarnicki; Jan Musiałkiewicz; Alicja Stańska; Adam Maciejewski; Paweł Gut; George Mastorakos; Marek Ruchała Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-09-21 Impact factor: 4.964