3-marker Panel Research Articles

Distinguishing between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas: is a 2-marker (Vim/CEA) panel enough?

Gynecological pathologists are used to operating many panels of various markers in combination for the diagnostic distinction between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas. The conventional 3-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel is the most promising tool. In this study, our aim is to investigate whether a 2-marker panel is enough to distinguish between these two gynecologic malignancies. Additionally, we wish to determine which one is the most favorable among eight panels tested, including six 2-marker (ER/CEA, PR/CEA, Vim/CEA, ER/p16(INK4a), PR/p16(INK4a), Vim/p16(INK4a)) and two 3-marker (ER/Vim/CEA, ER/Vim/p16(INK)) panels. A tissue microarray was constructed using paraffin-embedded, formalin-fixed tissues from 35 hysterectomy specimens, including 14 primary endocervical adenocarcinomas and 21 primary endometrial adenocarcinomas. Utilizing the avidin-biotin complex (ABC) method, tissue array sections were immunostained with five commercially available antibodies (ER, Vim, CEA, PR, and p16(INK4a)) to evaluate their individual frequencies of expression. We found that all eight aforementioned panels showed an encouraging range of overall accuracy (69.2% to 78.3%). However, one panel of 2-markers (Vim, CEA) exhibited the most efficiency (78.3%) in the diagnostic distinction between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas. Based on the analyzed data, we conclude that the 2-marker (Vim/CEA) panel seems adequate to be an appropriate, convenient, and efficient means to distinguish between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas. Even though there were a limited number of cases, this study still provides valuable references to help avoid wasting resources and unnecessary marker testing.

Adding the p16INK4a Marker to the Traditional 3-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) Panel Engenders No Supplemental Benefit in Distinguishing Between Primary Endocervical and Endometrial Adenocarcinomas in a Tissue Microarray Study

Endocervical adenocarcinomas (ECAs) and endometrial adenocarcinomas (EMAs) are malignancies that affect the uterus; however, their biologic behaviors are quite different. This distinction has clinical significance, because the appropriate therapy may depend on the site of tumor origin. In this study, we not only compare the individual expression status of 4 immunomarkers [estrogen receptor (ER), vimentin (Vim), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and p16], but also evaluate whether p16 adds value to the ER/Vim/CEA panel characteristics and performance in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA. A tissue microarray (TMA) was constructed using paraffin-embedded, formalin-fixed tissues from 38 hysterectomy specimens, including 14 ECAs and 24 EMAs. Tissue microarray sections were immunostained with 4 antibodies, by the avidin-biotin complex method for antigen visualization. The staining intensity and area extent of the immunohistochemical reactions were evaluated using the semiquantitative scoring system. The 3 markers (ER, Vim, CEA) and their respective panel expressions showed statistically significant (P<0.05) frequency differences in ECA and EMA tumors. The p16 marker also revealed a significant frequency difference (P<0.05) between ECA and EMA, but did not demonstrate any supplementary benefit to the traditional 3-marker panel. In conclusion, when histomorphologic and clinical doubt exist as to the primary site of origin, we suggest that the conventional 3-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel is appropriate. Ancillary p16-marker testing does not add value to the 3-marker panel in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA.

Progesterone receptor does not improve the performance and test effectiveness of the conventional 3-marker panel, consisting of estrogen receptor, vimentin and carcinoembryonic antigen in distinguishing between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray extension study

ObjectiveEndocervical adenocarcinomas (ECA) and endometrial adenocarcinomas (EMA) are uterine malignancies that have differing biological behaviors. The choice of an appropriate therapeutic plan rests on the tumor's site of origin. In this study, we propose to evaluate whether PR adds value to the performance and test effectiveness of the conventional 3-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA.MethodsA tissue microarray was constructed using paraffin-embedded, formalin-fixed tissues from 38 hysterectomy specimens, including 14 ECA and 24 EMA. Tissue microarray (TMA) sections were immunostained with 4 antibodies, using the avidin-biotin complex (ABC) method for antigen visualization. The staining intensity and extent of the immunohistochemical (IHC) reactions were appraised using a semi-quantitative scoring system.ResultsThe three markers (ER, Vim and CEA) and their respective panel expressions showed statistically significant (p < 0.05) frequency differences between ECA and EMA tumors. Although the additional ancillary PR-marker also revealed a significant frequency difference (p < 0.05) between ECA and EMA tumors, it did not demonstrate any supplementary benefit to the 3-marker panel.ConclusionAccording to our data, when histomorphological and clinical doubt exists as to the primary site of origin, we recommend that the conventional 3-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel is easier, sufficient and appropriate to use in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA. Although the 4-marker panel containing PR also reveals statistically significant results, the PR-marker offers no supplemental benefit to the pre-existing 3-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel in the diagnostic distinction between ECA and EMA.

A prospective, multicenter derivation of a biomarker panel to assess risk of organ dysfunction, shock, and death in emergency department patients with suspected sepsis

To define a biomarker panel to predict organ dysfunction, shock, and in-hospital mortality in emergency department (ED) patients with suspected sepsis. Prospective observational study. EDs of ten academic medical centers. There were 971 patients enrolled. 1) ED patients age > 18; 2) suspected infection or a serum lactate level > 2.5 mmol/L; and 3) two or more systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria. pregnancy, do-not-resuscitate status, or cardiac arrest. Nine biomarkers were assayed from blood draws obtained on ED presentation. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify an optimal combination of biomarkers to create a panel. The derived formula for weighting biomarker values was used to calculate a "sepsis score," which was the predicted probability of the primary outcome of severe sepsis (sepsis plus organ dysfunction) within 72 hrs. We also assessed the ability of the sepsis score to predict secondary outcome measures of septic shock within 72 hrs and in-hospital mortality. The overall rates of each outcome were severe sepsis, 52%; septic shock, 39%; and in-hospital mortality 7%. Among the nine biomarkers tested, the optimal 3-marker panel was neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin, protein C, and interleukin-1 receptor antagonist. The area under the curve for the accuracy of the sepsis score derived from these three biomarkers was 0.80 for severe sepsis, 0.77 for septic shock, and 0.79 for death. When included in multivariate models with clinical variables, the sepsis score remained highly significant (p < 0.001) for all the three outcomes. A biomarker panel of neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin, interleukin-1ra, and Protein C was predictive of severe sepsis, septic shock, and death in ED patients with suspected sepsis. Further study is warranted to prospectively validate the clinical utility of these biomarkers and the sepsis score in risk-stratifying patients with suspected sepsis.

Panel of Markers Can Accurately Predict Endometriosis in a Subset of Patients

Because imaging methods are unreliable for diagnosing or staging endometriosis, a definitive diagnosis requires surgery. The fact that the disease produces a local, and probably also a systemic, inflammatory process raises the possibility that a combination of inflammatory markers and cancer antigen-125 (CA-125) could make up a multiple-marker screening test for endometriosis. This possibility was tested in a case-control study of women of reproductive age having laparoscopy for a variety of reasons. Marker levels were compared in 63 women with operatively confirmed stage II-IV endometriosis and 78 others who were found surgically not to have the disease. The putative markers, estimated by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, were interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor-α, macrophage migration inhibitory factor, macrophage chemotactic protein-1, interferon-β, leptin, and CA-125. The diagnostic performance of each of the 6 cytokines individually and of CA-125, based on receiver operating characteristic curves, was poor. After eliminating interferon-γ because levels were below the assay’s limit for detection, there was marked overlap in concentrations of the other 6 markers between the 2 study groups. The only markers whose levels were significantly higher in women with endometriosis were CA-125 and leptin. Evaluation of combinations of markers by classification tree analysis showed that a 3-marker panel of CA-125, macrophage chemotactic protein-1, and leptin predicted the presence of endometriosis in 51% of participants with 89% accuracy. Adding a fourth marker, macrophage migration inhibitory factor, diagnosed 48% of subjects with 93% accuracy. Using markers will not diagnose all patients as having, or not having, endometriosis, but disease status can be predicted with high accuracy in a substantial number of them, making diagnostic surgery unnecessary. The investigators believe that marker estimates will be an efficient adjunct to the work-up of patients suspected of having endometriosis.

Diagnostic value of HSP70, glypican 3, and glutamine synthetase in hepatocellular nodules in cirrhosis

Hepatocellular nodules in cirrhosis include regenerative (large regenerative, LRN) and dysplastic (low and high grade, LGDN and HGDN) nodules, early and grade 1 HCC (eHCC-G1), and overt HCC. The differential diagnosis may be particularly difficult when lesions such as HGDN and eHCC-G1 are involved. We investigated the diagnostic yield of a panel of 3 putative markers of hepatocellular malignancy such as HSP70, glypican 3 (GPC3), and glutamine synthetase (GS). We selected 52 surgically removed nonmalignant nodules (15 LRNs, 15 LGDNs, 22 HGDNs) and 53 HCCs (10 early, 22 grade 1, and 21 grade 2-3) and immunostained them for HSP70, GPC3, and GS. The sensitivity and specificity of the individual markers for the detection of eHCC-G1 were 59% and 86% for GS, 69% and 91% for GPC3, and 78% and 95% for HSP70. We identified 2 main phenotypes: (1) all negative, seen in 100% LRN and LGDN, 73% HGDN and 3% eHCC-G1; (2) all positive, a feature detected in less than half the eHCC-G1. Using a 3-marker panel, when at least 2 of them, regardless which, were positive, the sensitivity and specificity for the detection of eHCC-G1 were respectively 72% and 100%; the most sensitive combination was HSP70+/GPC3+ (59%) when a 2-marker panel was used. The adopted panel of 3 markers is very helpful in distinguishing eHCC-G1 from dysplastic nodules arising in cirrhosis.

Combined Detection of CEA, CK-19 and c-met mRNAs in Peripheral Blood: A Highly Sensitive Panel for Potential Molecular Diagnosis of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Objective: Detection of tumor-related mRNA in blood has become a potential cancer diagnostic approach. However, the sensitivity of single-marker assays is not high enough for clinical applications. The present study was aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a multimarker panel for molecular diagnosis of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), cytokeratin 19 (CK-19), c-met and heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoprotein (hnRNP) B1 mRNAs were quantified by quantitative real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction in 34 tumor tissues and 69 peripheral blood samples of NSCLC patients. Results: All four markers displayed high overexpression rates (range 82.3–97.1%) in NSCLC tumors. When used as single markers in blood for NSCLC diagnosis, CEA, CK-19, c-met and hnRNP B1 could only reach sensitivities of 52.2, 50.7, 42 and 17.4%, respectively. However, the sensitivity was enhanced up to 85.5% when CEA, CK-19 and c-met were combined in a 3-marker panel. Moreover, the expression of c-met and hnRNP B1 in blood was significantly correlated with patients’ pathological stages. Conclusions:The combined detection of CEA, CK-19 and c-met mRNAs in blood provided a valuable tool for molecular diagnosis of NSCLC. In addition, our results also suggested that hnRNP B1 was not a valuable diagnostic marker but a potential prognostic marker for NSCLC.

Ovarian cancer identified through screening with serum markers but not by pelvic imaging.

Woolas RP, Oram DH, Jeyarajah AR, Bast RC Jr, Jacobs IJ. Ovarian cancer identified through screening with serum markers but not by pelvic imaging. This study evaluated the possible role of 3 additional tumor markers to CA 125 among postmenopausal volunteers participating in a sequential multimodal ovarian cancer screening study. In 82 asymptomatic women the finding of a serum CA 125 level of > 30 U/ml precipitated pelvic ultrasound examination. Levels of CA15-3, CA72-4 and CA19-9 were subsequently determined in sera stored from the time of the CA 125 assay. Following ultrasound 29 women underwent surgery for benign conditions. The remaining 53 women underwent 2 years of surveillance. In 5 of these women a diagnosis of ovarian cancer was established between 6 and 10 months after their initial investigation. Elevated levels of at least one of the 3 additional tumor markers were present in the serum, prior to ultrasound abnormalities being detected, in 4 (80%) of the women who developed cancer. At least one of this 3-marker panel was elevated in 29% of the 48 women who have not developed cancer and 14% of the 29 women undergoing surgery for benign conditions. Information complementary to pelvic ultrasound examination for the preclinical detection of ovarian cancer could be obtained through multiple marker assay. Coordinated elevated serum levels of tumor markers could increase the sensitivity of this sequential screening protocol.