Abstract
Pancreatic cancer is one of the cancer types with poor prognosis and high rate of mortality. Diagnostic modalities for early detection of pancreatic cancer have been among the academic concerns. On account of the potential role of immunohistochemistry (IHC) biomarkers in overcoming certain limitations of imaging diagnostic tools in discriminating pancreatic cancer tissues from benign ones, a growing scholarly attention has been given to the diagnostic efficacy of IHC biomarkers for pancreatic cancer. This review will analyze and synthesize published articles to provide an insight into potential IHC biomarkers for pancreatic cancer diagnosis.
Highlights
In the developed countries, pancreatic cancer is presently the fourth leading cancer cause of mortality [1]
IHC biomarkers can contribute to the detection of pancreatic cancer by biologically differentiating pancreatic cancer from benign forms of pancreatic diseases as well as healthy cases [31]
The findings in the current review identifies 22 IHC biomarkers for pancreatic cancer diagnosis, whose sensitivity and specificity can be comparable to this standard IHC biomarker as well as, which can add to the list of diagnostic IHC biomarkers for pancreatic cancer in Liu et al.’s (2012) [12] review
Summary
Pancreatic cancer is presently the fourth leading cancer cause of mortality [1]. Age-standardized incident rate of pancreatic cancer is 7.2 per 100,000 in developed countries versus 2.8 in less developed regions [2]. Pancreatic cancer incident rate has gradually accelerated and it is anticipated, within a decade, to increase to the second, behind lung cancer, among the leading cancer-related causes of mortality [3]. Over half of the pancreatic cancer cases have been diagnosed at an advanced stage, which can partially explain its five-year survival rate being under 9% [4]. Current PDAC diagnosis modalities, such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUSFNA), demonstrate clinical limitations [6,7,8]. Difficulties in gathering sufficient diagnostic samples as well as false positive and false negative diagnoses have limited the clinical utility of the EUS-FNA technique [6]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
