Search

OBJECTIVE:The aim of the present study is to determine if CEACAM6 can be detected in the bile of patients with biliary cancer and can serve as a diagnostic biomarker for cholangiocarcinoma. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA:Distinguishing bile duct carcinoma from other diagnoses is often difficult using endoscopic or percutaneous techniques. The cell surface protein CEACAM6 is over-expressed in many gastrointestinal cancers and may be selectively elevated in biliary adenocarcinoma. METHODS:Bile from patients with benign biliary disease and cholangiocarcinoma (hilar, intrahepatic and distal) was collected at the time of index operation. The concentration of CEACAM6 was quantified by sandwich enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and correlated to pathologic diagnosis. Diagnostic capability of CEACAM6 was evaluated by Wilcoxon rank-sum, linear regression, multiple regression, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. RESULTS:Bile from 83 patients was analyzed: 42 with benign disease and 41 with cholangiocarcinoma. Patients in the benign cohort were younger, predominantly female, and had lower median biliary CEACAM6 levels than patients in the malignant cohort (7.5 ng/ml vs. 40 ng/ml; p = 14 ng/ml associated with 87.5% sensitivity, 69.1% specificity, and a likelihood ratio of 2.8 (AUC 0.74). Multiple regression analysis suggested elevated alkaline phosphatase and the presence of biliary endoprostheses may influence CEACAM6 levels. CONCLUSION:Biliary CEACAM6 can identify patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma with a high degree of sensitivity and should be investigated further as a potential screening tool.

Background One–fifth of patients with seemingly ‘curable’ pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA) experience an early recurrence and death, receiving no definable benefit from a major operation. Some patients with advanced stage tumors are deemed ‘unresectable’ by conventional staging criteria (e.g. liver metastasis), yet progress slowly. Effective biomarkers that stratify PDA based on biologic behavior are needed. To help researchers sort through the maze of biomarker data, a compendium of ∼2500 published candidate biomarkers in PDA was compiled (PLoS Med, 2009. 6(4) p. e1000046). Methods and Findings Building on this compendium, we constructed a survival tissue microarray (termed s-TMA) comprised of short-term (cancer-specific death 30 months, n = 79) who underwent resection for PDA (total, n = 137). The s-TMA functions as a biological filter to identify bona fide prognostic markers associated with survival group extremes (at least 18 months separate survival groups). Based on a stringent selection process, 13 putative PDA biomarkers were identified from the public biomarker repository. Candidates were tested against the s-TMA by immunohistochemistry to identify the best markers of tumor biology. In a multivariate model, MUC1 (odds ratio, OR = 28.95, 3+ vs. negative expression, p = 0.004) and MSLN (OR = 12.47, 3+ vs. negative expression, p = 0.01) were highly predictive of early cancer-specific death. By comparison, pathologic factors (size, lymph node metastases, resection margin status, and grade) had ORs below three, and none reached statistical significance. ROC curves were used to compare the four pathologic prognostic features (ROC area = 0.70) to three univariate molecular predictors (MUC1, MSLN, MUC2) of survival group (ROC area = 0.80, p = 0.07). Conclusions MUC1 and MSLN were superior to pathologic features and other putative biomarkers as predicting survival group. Molecular assays comparing cancers from short and long survivors are an effective strategy to screen biomarkers and prioritize candidate cancer genes for diagnostic and therapeutic studies.