Evaluation of Proteomics-Identified CCL18 and CXCL1 as Circulating Tumor Markers for Differential Diagnosis between Ovarian Carcinomas and Benign Pelvic Masses

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 262-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qi Wang ◽  
Danrong Li ◽  
Wei Zhang ◽  
Bujian Tang ◽  
Qingdi Quentin Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Differential Diagnosis ◽  
Tumor Markers ◽  
Laser Desorption ◽  
Ca 125 ◽  
Laser Desorption Ionization ◽  
Desorption Ionization ◽  
Healthy Women ◽  
Pelvic Masses ◽  
Ovarian Masses

A lack of sensitive and specific tumor markers for early diagnosis and treatment is a major cause for the high mortality rate of ovarian cancer. The purpose of this study was to identify potential proteomics-based biomarkers useful for the differential diagnosis between ovarian cancer and benign pelvic masses. Serum samples from 41 patients with ovarian cancer, 32 patients with benign pelvic masses, and 41 healthy female blood donors were examined, and proteomic profiling of the samples was assessed by surface-enhanced laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight (SELDI-TOF) mass spectroscopy (MS). A confirmatory study was also conducted with serum specimens from 58 patients with ovarian carcinoma, 37 patients with benign pelvic masses, and 48 healthy women. A classification tree was established using Biomarker Pattern Software. Six differentially expressed proteins (APP, CA 125, CCL18, CXCL1, IL-8, and ITIH4) were separated by high-performance liquid chromatography and identified by matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization (MALDI)-MS/MS and database searches. Two of the proteins overexpressed in ovarian cancer patients, chemokine CC2 motif ligand 18 (CCL18) and chemokine CXC motif ligand 1 (CXCL1), were automatically selected in a multivariate predictive model. These two protein biomarkers were then validated and evaluated by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in 535 serum specimens (130 ovarian cancer, 64 benign ovarian masses, 36 lung cancer, 60 gastric cancer, 55 nasopharyngeal carcinoma, 48 hepatocellular carcinoma, and 142 healthy women). The combined use of CCL18 and CXCL1 as biomarkers for ovarian cancer had a sensitivity of 92% and a specificity of 97%. The multivariate ELISA analysis of the two putative markers in combination with CA 125 resulted in a sensitivity of 99% for healthy women and 94% for benign pelvic masses, and a specificity of 92% for both groups; these values were significantly higher than those obtained with CA 125 alone (P<0.05). We conclude that serum CCL18 and CXCL1 are potentially useful as novel circulating tumor markers for the differential diagnosis between ovarian cancer and benign ovarian masses.

Alteration in Lipid and Protein Profiles of Ovarian Cancer: Similarity to Breast Cancer

2011 ◽  
Vol 21 (9) ◽  
pp. 1566-1572 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sokbom Kang ◽  
Aera Lee ◽  
Young Seung Park ◽  
Seok Cheol Lee ◽  
Sang Yoon Park ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Laser Desorption ◽  
Lipid Profiles ◽  
Laser Desorption Ionization ◽  
Protein Profiles ◽  
Tissue Samples ◽  
Desorption Ionization ◽  
Matrix Assisted Laser ◽  
Matrix Assisted Laser Desorption

AbstractThis study was undertaken to evaluate protein and lipid profiles of ovarian cancer tissue samples. Twenty-three frozen ovarian cancer samples and 6 adjacent normal samples were analyzed using histology-directed, matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization mass spectrometry. Sinapinic acid and 2, 5-dihydroxybenzoic acid/α-cyano-4-hydroxycinnamic acid were manually deposited on areas of each tissue section enriched in epithelial cells to identify protein and lipid profiles respectively, and mass spectra were acquired using a matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization–time of flight instrument. Protein and lipid profiles classify 11 cancer and 3 adjacent normal samples in 100 random test sets with 92.9% median accuracy. Phosphatidylcholines {32:3} [M + Na]+ (m/z = 750.66), {34:1} [M + K]+ (m/z = 798.60), and {36:2} [M + K]+ (m/z = 824.56) were found to be increased in ovarian cancer. Interestingly, breast cancer–associated changes in lipid and protein profiles were also found in ovarian cancer. Thus, protein and lipid profiles accurately distinguish ovarian cancer from adjacent normal tissue samples. Common cancer-associated alterations in lipid and protein profiles were identified between ovarian and breast cancers.

scholarly journals Little Clinical Relevance of Ca125, Cea and Ca125/Cea Ratio for the Differential Diagnosis of Ovarian and Non- Ovarian Carcinomatosis

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (5) ◽  
pp. 01-07
Author(s):  
Carmen Manuela Tauste Rubio
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Differential Diagnosis ◽  
Peritoneal Carcinomatosis ◽  
Tumor Markers ◽  
Venous Blood ◽  
Area Under The Curve ◽  
Poor Performance ◽  
Final Diagnosis ◽  
Ca 125 ◽  
Peritoneal Cancer

Background In women, peritoneal cancer is commonly associated to epithelial ovarian cancer. Ovarian peritoneal carcinomatosis patient survival appears to be better in comparison to other peritoneal Malignancies, e.g., colorectal neoplasms or mesotheliomas. Here, we aim to analyze the value of CA125, CEA, CA125/CEA ratio (CCR) tumor markers as preoperative tools for the diagnosis ovarian cancer. Material and methods: From 2005-2008, we recruit prospectively patients admitted to the Navarre Hospital Complex Gynecological service with peritoneal carcinomatosis and suspicion of ovarian cancer origins. The final diagnosis of ovarian cancer carcinomatosis or other malignancies was obtained through Biopsy or cytology. CA 125, CEA and CCR were determined from preoperative venous blood Samples. We compared the tumor markers values between groups of ovarian cancer carcinomatosis and non-ovarian cancer carcinomatosis and calculate the receiver operating curves (ROC) for CA 125, CEA and CCR. Results From 250 patients with suspicion of having ovarian peritoneal carcinomatosis, only 86.4% of the Cases were finally diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Sensitivities of CA125 > 35 mg/dL, CEA < 5 ngr/mL, and CCR > 25 were 95.5%, 91.9%, and 93.6% with specificities of 4.6%, 40.9% and 40.0%, respectively. ROC displayed poor performance for CA125 and CEA for detecting ovarian peritoneal carcinomatosis patients (area under the curve (AUC): 0.69 and 0.63, respectively) while ROC analysis of CCR showed better results (AUC: 0.74). Conclusions: CCR is somehow useful to differentiate between ovarian and non-ovarian peritoneal carcinomatosis patients in comparison with CA125 and CEA alone, although without sufficient specificity for improving the differential diagnosis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document