Search

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is a major burden to global health and is still among the most frequent and most lethal malignant diseases. Macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) is a proinflammatory cytokine involved in a variety of processes including tumorigenesis, formation of a tumor microenvironment and metastasis. It is therefore a potential prognostic biomarker in malignant diseases. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we investigated the applicability of MIF in serum samples as a biomarker in lung cancer. METHODS: In a retrospective approach, we analyzed the sera of 79 patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and 14 patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) before the start of chemotherapy, as well as before the second and third chemotherapy cycle, respectively. Serum MIF levels were measured using a sandwich immunoassay with a sulfo-tag-labelled detection antibody, while pro-gastrin releasing peptide (proGRP) levels were determined with an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. RESULTS: No difference in serum MIF levels between responders and non-responders to chemotherapy was observed at all time points, while proGRP levels were significantly lower in responders before the second chemotherapy cycle (p = 0.012). No differences in biomarker levels depending on the histopathological classification of NSCLC patients was found. Moreover, in ROC curve analyses MIF was not able to distinguish between responders and non-responders to therapy. proGRP could differentiate between responders and non-responders before the second chemotherapy cycle (p = 0.015) with sensitivities of 43% at 90% and 95% specificity, respectively. Likewise, proGRP yielded significantly longer survival times of patients with low proGRP concentrations before the second chemotherapy cycle (p = 0.015) in Kaplan-Meier analyses, yet MIF showed no significant differences in survival times at all time points. Comparison with the biomarkers CEA and CYFRA 21-1 in the same cohort showed that these established biomarkers clearly performed superior to MIF and proGRP. CONCLUSIONS: From the present results, there is no indication that serum MIF may serve as a biomarker in prognosis and monitoring of response to therapy in lung cancer. Limitations of this study include its retrospective design, the inclusion of a larger NSCLC and a smaller SCLC subgroup, the classical chemotherapeutic treatment, the use of a non-diagnostic immunoassay (RUO-test) for MIF measurement and the lack of a validation cohort. Strengths of the study are its highly standardized procedures concerning sample collection, preanalytic treatment, measurements and quality control of the laboratory assays. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical laboratories are responsible for performing lung cancer tumor marker testing as part of routine clinical care. It is their responsibility to guarantee that the reported tumor marker results are reliable and meet the necessary quality standards for proper clinical use. During the different laboratory phases, pre-analytical, analytical and post-analytical, specific steps and processes can introduce errors and generate incorrect clinical interpretation. This editorial briefly outlines critical laboratory issues related to lung cancer tumor markers, specific for each of these three laboratory phases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Blood-based diagnostics for lung cancer support the diagnosis, estimation of prognosis, prediction, and monitoring of therapy response in lung cancer patients. The clinical utility of serum tumor markers has considerably increased due to developments in serum protein tumor markers analytics and clinical biomarker studies, the exploration of preanalytical and influencing conditions, the interpretation of biomarker combinations and individual biomarker kinetics, as well as the implementation of biostatistical models. In addition, circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and other liquid biopsy markers are playing an increasingly prominent role in the molecular tumor characterization and the monitoring of tumor evolution over time. Thus, modern lung cancer biomarkers may considerably contribute to an individualized companion diagnostics and provide a sensitive guidance for patients throughout the course of their disease. In this special edition on Tumor Markers in Lung Cancer, experts summarize recent developments in clinical laboratory diagnostics of lung cancer and give an outlook on future challenges and opportunities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Differential diagnosis of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and small cell lung cancer (SCLC) in hospitalized patients is crucial for appropriate treatment choice. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relevance of serum tumor markers (STMs) and their combinations for the differentiation of NSCLC and SCLC subtypes. METHODS: Between 2000 and 2003, 10 established STMs were assessed retrospectively in 311 patients with NSCLC, 128 with SCLC prior systemic first-line therapy and 51 controls with benign lung diseases (BLD), by automatized electrochemiluminescence immunoassay technology. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of both individual and multiple STMs with corresponding sensitivities at 90% specificity. Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD guidelines) were followed. RESULTS: CYFRA 21-1 (cytokeratin-19 fragment), CEA (carcinoembryonic antigen) and NSE (neuron specific enolase) were significantly higher in all lung cancers vs BLD, reaching AUCs of 0.81 (95% CI 0.76–0.87), 0.78 (0.73–0.84), and 0.88 (0.84–0.93), respectively. By the three marker combination, the discrimination between benign and all malignant cases was improved resulting in an AUC of 0.93 (95% CI 0.90–0.96). In NSCLC vs. BLD, CYFRA 21-1, CEA and NSE were best discriminative STMs, with AUCs of 0.86 (95% CI 0.81–0.91), 0.80 (0.74–0.85), and 0.85 (0.79–0.91). The three marker combination also improved the AUC: 0.92; 95% CI 0.89–0.96). In SCLC vs. BLD, ProGRP (pro-gastrin-releasing peptide) and NSE were best discriminative STMs, with AUCs of 0.89 (95% CI 0.84–0.94) and 0.96 (0.93–0.98), respectively, and slightly improved AUC of 0.97 (95% CI 0.95–0.99) when in combination. Finally, discrimination between SCLC and NSCLC was possible by ProGRP (AUC 0.86; 95% CI 0.81–0.91), NSE (AUC 0.83; 0.78–0.88) and CYFRA 21-1 (AUC 0.69; 0.64–0.75) and by the combination of the 3 STMs (AUC 0.93; 0.91–0.96), with a sensitivity of 88% at 90% specificity. CONCLUSIONS: The results confirm the power of STM combinations for the differential diagnosis of lung cancer from benign lesions and between histological lung cancer subtypes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Programmed cell death receptors and ligands in cancer tissue samples are established companion diagnostics for immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapies. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relevance of soluble PD-1, PD-L1 and PD-L2 for estimating therapy response and prognosis in non-small cell lung cancer patients (NSCLC) undergoing platin-based combination chemotherapies. METHODS: In a biomarker substudy of a prospective, multicentric clinical trial (CEPAC-TDM) on advanced NSCLC patients, soluble PD-1, PD-L1 and PD-L2 were assessed in serial serum samples by highly sensitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays and correlated with radiological response after two cycles of chemotherapy and with overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Among 243 NSCLC patients, 185 achieved response (partial remission and stable disease) and 58 non-response (progression). The distribution of PD-1, PD-L1 and PD-L2 at baseline (C1), prior to staging (C3) and the relative changes (C3/C1) greatly overlapped between the patient groups with response and non-response, thus hindering the discrimination between the two groups. None of the PD markers had prognostic value regarding OS. CONCLUSIONS: Neither soluble PD-1, PD-L1 nor PD-L2 did provide clinical utility for predicting response to chemotherapy and prognosis. Studies on the relevance of PD markers in ICI therapies are warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Protein tumor markers are released in high amounts into the blood in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relevance of serum tumor markers (STM) for prognosis, prediction and monitoring of therapy response in NSCLC patients receiving chemotherapy. METHODS: In a biomarker substudy of a prospective, multicentric clinical trial (CEPAC-TDM) on 261 advanced NSCLC patients, CYFRA 21-1, CEA, SCC, NSE, ProGRP, CA125, CA15-3 and HE4 were assessed in serial serum samples and correlated with radiological response after two cycles of chemotherapy and overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: While pretherapeutic STM levels at staging did not discriminate between progressive and non-progressive patients, CYFRA 21-1, CA125, NSE and SCC at time of staging did, and yielded AUCs of 0.75, 0.70, 0.69 and 0.67 in ROC curves, respectively. High pretherapeutic CA15-3 and CA125 as well as high CYFRA 21-1, SCC, CA125 and CA15-3 levels at staging were prognostic for shorter PFS and OS –also when clinical variables were added to the models. CONCLUSIONS: STM at the time of first radiological staging and pretherapeutic CA15-3, CA125 are predictive for first-line treatment response and highly prognostic in patients with advanced NSCLC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: The value of serum tumor markers (STMs) in the current therapeutic landscape of lung cancer is unclear. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review gathered evidence of the predictive, prognostic, and monitoring value of STMs for patients with advanced lung cancer receiving immunotherapy (IT) or targeted therapy (TT). METHODS: Literature searches were conducted (cut-off: May 2022) using PubMed and Cochrane CENTRAL databases. Medical professionals advised on the search strategies. RESULTS: Study heterogeneity limited the evidence and inferences from the 36 publications reviewed. While increased baseline levels of serum cytokeratin 19 fragment antigen (CYFRA21-1) and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) may predict IT response, results for TT were less clear. For monitoring IT-treated patients, STM panels (including CYFRA21-1, CEA, and neuron-specific enolase) may surpass the power of single analyses to predict non-response. CYFRA21-1 measurement could aid in monitoring TT-treated patients, but the value of CEA in this context requires further investigation. Overall, baseline and dynamic changes in individual or combined STM levels have potential utility to predict treatment outcome and for monitoring of patients with advanced lung cancer. CONCLUSIONS: In advanced lung cancer, STMs provide additional relevant clinical information by predicting treatment outcome, but further standardization and validation is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: In oncology, the identification of early predictors of response/survival is of particular interest. C-reactive protein (CRP) concentrations have been associated with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and poor prognosis. We characterized the association between anticancer drug exposure, tumor size as a marker of tumor dynamics, and CRP as a marker of inflammation and derived different predictors. CRP at the beginning of treatment cycle 3 (day 42) was identified as the strongest predictor of both progression-free survival and overall survival, and the inflammatory status, monitored by CRP concentration, emerged as a promising prognostic marker. The high significance of longitudinal CRP concentrations compared to baseline concentrations provided a true reflection of the patient status. This framework could be applied to other treatment modalities such as immunotherapies or targeted therapies, allowing the identification of patients at risk of early progression and/or short survival to spare them unnecessary toxicities and offer alternative treatment decisions. In oncology, longitudinal biomarkers reflecting the patient's status and disease evolution can offer reliable predictions of the patient's response to treatment and prognosis. By leveraging clinical data in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer receiving first-line chemotherapy, we aimed to develop a framework combining anticancer drug exposure, tumor dynamics (RECIST criteria), and C-reactive protein (CRP) concentrations, using nonlinear mixed-effects models, to evaluate and quantify by means of parametric time-to-event models the significance of early longitudinal predictors of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Tumor dynamics was characterized by a tumor size (TS) model accounting for anticancer drug exposure and development of drug resistance. CRP concentrations over time were characterized by a turnover model. An x-fold change in TS from baseline linearly affected CRP production. CRP concentration at treatment cycle 3 (day 42) and the difference between CRP concentration at treatment cycles 3 and 2 were the strongest predictors of PFS and OS. Measuring longitudinal CRP allows for the monitoring of inflammatory levels and, along with its reduction across treatment cycles, presents a promising prognostic marker. This framework could be applied to other treatment modalities such as immunotherapies or targeted therapies allowing the timely identification of patients at risk of early progression and/or short survival to spare them unnecessary toxicities and provide alternative treatment decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Notwithstanding some improvement in the earlier detection of patients with lung cancer, most of them still present with a late-stage disease at the time of diagnosis. Next to the most frequently utilized factors affecting the prognosis of lung cancer patients (stage, performance, and age), the recent application of biomarkers obtained by liquid profiling has gained more acceptance. In our study, we aimed to answer these questions: (i) Is the quantification of free-circulating methylated PTGER4 and SHOX2 plasma DNA a useful method for therapy monitoring, and is this also possible for patients treated with different therapy regimens? (ii) Is this approach possible when blood-drawing tubes, which allow for a delayed processing of blood samples, are utilized? Baseline values for mPTGER4 and mSHOX2 do not allow for clear discrimination between different response groups. In contrast, the combination of the methylation values for both genes shows a clear difference between responders vs. non-responders at the time of re-staging. Furthermore, blood drawing into tubes stabilizing the sample allows researchers more flexibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aimed to investigate whether changes in progastrin-releasing peptide (ProGRP) levels correlate with treatment response and can be used to optimize clinical management of patients with small-cell lung cancer. Patients with small-cell lung cancer (any stage) receiving chemotherapy were eligible. ProGRP was measured in serum/plasma at baseline and after each chemotherapy cycle using the Elecsys® ProGRP assay (Roche Diagnostics). Treatment response was assessed by computed tomography scan. The primary objective was to examine whether changes in ProGRP levels correlated with computed tomography scan results after two cycles of chemotherapy. The prognostic value of ProGRP among patients receiving first-line chemotherapy was also assessed. Overall, 261 patients from six centers were eligible. Among patients with elevated baseline ProGRP (>100 pg/mL), a ProGRP decline after Cycle 2 was associated with nonprogression (area under the curve: 84%; 95% confidence interval: 72.8–95.1; n = 141). ProGRP changes from baseline to end of Cycle 1 were predictive of response, as determined by computed tomography scan 3 weeks later (area under the curve: 87%; 95% confidence interval: 74.1−99.2; n = 137). This was enhanced by repeat measurements, with a 92% area under the curve (95% confidence interval: 85.3−97.8) among patients with ProGRP data after both Cycles 1 and 2 (n = 123); if a patient experienced a ≥25% decline in ProGRP after Cycle 1, and ProGRP remained stable or decreased after Cycle 2, the probability of finding progression on the interim computed tomography scan at the end of Cycle 2 was almost zero (sensitivity: 100%, specificity: 71%). Both ProGRP levels at baseline and at the end of first-line chemotherapy were prognostic; the latter provided a moderately improved hazard ratio of 2.43 (95% confidence interval: 1.33–4.46; n = 110) versus 1.87 (95% confidence interval: 1.04–3.37; n = 216). In summary, for patients with small-cell lung cancer and elevated baseline ProGRP levels, ProGRP may be a simple, reliable, and repeatable tool for monitoring response to chemotherapy and provide valuable prognostic information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Blood-based biomarkers are valuable diagnostic tools for the management of lung cancer patients. They support not only differential diagnosis and histological subtyping, but are also applied for estimation of prognosis, stratification for specific therapies, monitoring of therapy response, surveillance monitoring and early detection of residual or progressive disease. Early diagnosis of lung cancer in high risk populations (screening) is a promising future indication but poses high medical and economic challenges to marker performance. The five mostly used classical 'tumor markers' show characteristic profiles of sensitivity and specificity for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) like cytokeratin 19-fragments (CYFRA 21-1), carcino-embryonic antigen (CEA) and squamous cancer cell antigen (SCCA) as well as for small cell lung cancer (SCLC) like progastrin-releasing peptide (ProGRP) and neuron-specific enolase (NSE). Combined use and pattern recognition approaches enable highly accurate diagnosis, subtyping and therapy monitoring. For the interpretation of serial measurements on an individual level, markerspecific algorithms have to be developed. So-called companion diagnostics identify druggable molecular changes in signaling pathways of tumor tissue that can be addressed by targeted therapies. New highly sensitive technologies enable the convenient and serial molecular characterization on circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in the blood, too. This approach is helpful when biopsies are not available and to overcome tumor molecular heterogeneity and plasticity. As only a portion of patients have such druggable molecular changes, future strategies will imply the combined use of classical and new ctDNA-based biomarkers to optimize the management of lung cancer patients during the course of disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background We performed a multicenter evaluation of the Elecsys® progastrin-releasing peptide (ProGRP) immunoassay in Europe and China. Methods The assay was evaluated at three European and two Chinese sites by imprecision, stability, method comparison and differentiation potential in lung cancer. Results Intermediate imprecision across five analyte concentrations ranged from 2.2% to 6.0% coefficient of variation. Good stability for plasma and serum samples was shown for various storage conditions. There was excellent correlation between the Elecsys® and ARCHITECT assays in plasma (slope 1.02, intercept − 2.72 pg/mL). The Elecsys® assay also showed good correlation between serum and plasma samples (slope 0.93, intercept 2.35 pg/mL; correlation coefficient 0.97). ProGRP differentiated small-cell and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC; area under the curve 0.90, 95% CI 0.87–0.93; 78.3% sensitivity, 95% specificity; at 84 pg/mL), with no relevant effects of ethnicity, age, gender or smoking. Median ProGRP concentrations were low in benign diseases (38 pg/mL), other malignancies (40 pg/mL) or NSCLC (39 pg/mL), except chronic kidney disease above stage 3 (> 100 pg/mL). Conclusions Increased stability of the Elecsys® ProGRP assay in serum and plasma offers clear benefits over existing assays. This first evaluation of a ProGRP assay in China demonstrated comparable differentiation potential among different ethnicities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Differential diagnosis of suspicious lung masses is essential for the selection of the appropriate therapy strategy. While non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in early stages and single lung metastases from other cancers mostly are resected by surgery, late stage NSCLC, small cell lung cancers (SCLC) and multiple lung metastases are treated by systemic chemo- and/or radiotherapeutic approaches. In many patients, biopsies for the histopathological subtyping can not be taken due to multimorbidity and instable clinical conditions of the patient or unfavourable localisation of the tumor. In addition, heterogeneity of lung tumors may imply the presence of different malignant cell types in one suspicious lesion. As tumor-related biomarkers in blood reflect the biochemical properties of cancer cells, their release or non-release may be helpful to support the clinical decision making. This review summarizes the current knowledge about the potential and the role of serum-based biomarkers for the differential diagnosis of lung cancer which is also mirrored in the new recommendations of the National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry (NACB). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prognostic information on the course of cancer disease is highly relevant for the accurate decision of the most effective treatment strategy for an individual patient. In early stage disease, the application of adjuvant chemo- or radiotherapy after surgery depends on the risk of the patient to early suffer from tumor recurrence. In advanced stage disease, risk stratification of the patients influences the choice of more aggressive or mild therapy alternatives. Besides tumor related parameters like tumor stage and individual factors, additional information by biomarkers is needed to better characterize patients prognosis in both situations. Although there are plenty of studies dealing on the prognostic relevance of diverse biomarkers in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the results are quite heterogeneous and sometimes conflicting. Reasons for this situation may be found in the design, the performance, the evaluation and the quality of result reporting of the studies. In this review, we focus on the prerequisites of informative prognostic trials, spot on the general shortcomings of studies published so far, and summarize the results of the prognostic studies available for early and advanced stages of NSCLC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The dysregulation of proliferating and apoptotic processes is a common feature in cancerogenesis. Thus, apoptotic products released into blood circulation are suggested as promising markers for the early cancer detection. However though sensitive assays are available, the lack of organ- and tumor-specificity limits the usefulness of most apoptotic parameters for screening purposes. However, they seem to be valuable for the prognosis and the prediction of response to systemic chemo- or radiotherapy in cancer disease. Here, the relevance of diverse circulating apoptotic markers is reviewed for the clinical management of patients with lung cancer. Among those promising markers are ligands and receptors of the FAS-system, members of the intracellular caspase cascade, cleaved apoptosis substrates such as cytokeratines, nucleosomal DNA, and apoptosis modulators like survivin. The review discusses their role for diagnosis, prognosis and therapy monitoring of lung cancer disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the release and amount of circulating biomarkers show considerable variations between individuals, single value determinations are often difficult to be interpreted on their diagnostic or prognostic significance on the individual level. However, changes of the biomarker levels in a specific person during the disease course are quite informative for the estimation of the efficacy of therapy or the early detection of recurrent disease because they consider only intraindividual variations. If methods for marker determination are maintained, preanalytical and analytical standard prerequistits are respected, thresholds for each marker have to be defined which exceeds the normal, intraindividual biological variation. Then continuous biomarker increases may be indicative for disease activity in terms of inefficient therapy response or tumor recurrence while decreasing values often are associated with activity reduction of cancer disease. Here, we review the current knowledge on biomarker kinetics in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and discuss the conditions and pitfalls of their relevance for the estimation efficacy of therapy and the early detection of recurrent disease. Further, we suggest a scenario to reveal the power of the defined biomarker use in future and to include those markers into the individual management of NSCLC patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article looks at developments in the study of lung cancer biomarkers. According to the authors, circulating biochemical markers are important and informative tools for managing lung cancer. Biomarkers are considered vital for follow-up investigations because biochemical changes in the blood manifest early the possibility of increasing tumor activity. Information on the release of biochemical markers by various benign and malignant diseases has been limited.

Summary: The increasing panel of systemic therapies enables the individual management of cancer patients, even in advanced stages. However, diagnostic tools indicating early the efficacy of therapy are still needed. In prospectively collected sera of 161 patients with recurrent non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving second-line chemotherapy, the courses of nucleosomes, cytokeratin-19 fragments (CYFRA 21-1), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), neuron-specific enolase (NSE), and progastrin-releasing peptide (ProGRP) were investigated and correlated with therapy response. At high specificity for detection of progressive disease, most sensitive biomarkers were identified and included in a combination model. High levels and insufficient decreases of nucleosomes and CYFRA 21-1 during the first cycle of therapy indicated poor outcome. Combination of nucleosome concentrations at day 8 and CYFRA 21-1 before start of the second cycle enabled the early detection of progressive disease with a sensitivity of 34.4% at 95% specificity (AUC 0.79) prior to imaging techniques. When cutoffs were fixed at the 90th percentile of responding patients, the combination model achieved sensitivities of 19% at 100% specificity and of 52% at 88% specificity. Thus, nucleosomes and CYFRA 21-1 showed to be valuable for the individual management of patients with recurrent NSCLC. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Facing an era of promising new antitumor therapies, predictors of therapy response are needed for the individual management of treatment. In sera collected prospectively from 311 patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer receiving first-line chemotherapy, changes in nucleosomal DNA fragments, cytokeratin-19 fragments (CYFRA 21–1), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), neuron-specific enolase (NSE), and progastrin-releasing peptide (ProGRP) were investigated and correlated with therapy response. In univariate analysis, high levels, slower and incomplete decline in nucleosomal DNA, CYFRA 21–1, and CEA predicted poor outcome. DNA concentrations at day 8 of the first therapeutic cycle and CYFRA 21–1 before start of the second cycle were identified as best predictive variables. In multivariate analysis, they predicted progression with a specificity of 100% in 29% of the cases earlier than imaging techniques. Thus, nucleosomal DNA and CYFRA 21–1 specifically identify a subgroup of patients with insufficient therapy response at the early treatment phase and showed to be valuable for disease management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nucleosomes, which are typical cell death products, are elevated in the serum of cancer patients and are known to rapidly increase during radiotherapy. As both normal and malignant cells are damaged by irradiation, we investigated to which extent both cell types contribute to the release of nucleosomes. We cultured monolayers of normal bronchoepithelial lung cells (BEAS-2B, n = 18) and epithelial lung cancer cells (EPLC, n = 18), exposed them to various radiation doses (0, 10 and 30 Gy) and observed them for 5 days. Culture medium was changed every 24 h. Subsequently, nucleosomes were determined in the supernatant by the Cell Death Detection-ELISAplus (Roche Diagnostics). Additionally, the cell number was estimated after harvesting the cells in a second preparation. After 5 days, the cell number of BEAS-2B cultures in the irradiated groups (10 Gy: median 0.03 × 106 cells/culture, range 0.02-0.08 × 106 cells/culture; 30 Gy: median 0.08 × 106 cells/culture, range 0.02-0.14 × 106 cells/culture) decreased significantly (10 Gy: p = 0.005; 30 Gy p = 0.005; Wilcoxon test) compared to the non-irradiated control group (median 4.81 × 106 cells/culture, range 1.50-9.54 × 106 cells/culture). Consistently, nucleosomes remained low in the supernatant of non-irradiated BEAS-2B. However, at 10 Gy, BEAS-2B showed a considerably increasing release of nucleosomes, with a maximum at 72 h (before irradiation: 0.24 × 103 arbitrary units, AU, range 0.13-4.09 × 103 AU, and after 72 h: 1.94 × 103 AU, range 0.11-5.70 × 103 AU). At 30 Gy, the release was even stronger, reaching the maximum earlier (at 48 h, 11.09 × 103 AU, range 6.89-18.28 × 103 AU). In non-irradiated EPLC, nucleosomes constantly increased slightly. At 10 Gy, we observed a considerably higher release of nucleosomes in EPLC, with a maximum at 72 h (before irradiation: 2.79 × 103 AU, range 2.42-3.80 × 103 AU, and after 72 h: 7.16 × 103 AU, range 4.30-16.20 × 103 AU), which was more than 3.5 times higher than in BEAS-2B. At 30 Gy, the maximum (6.22 × 103 AU, range 5.13-9.71 × 103 AU) was observed already after 24 h. These results indicate that normal bronchoepithelial and malignant lung cancer cells contribute to the release of nucleosomes during irradiation in a dose- and time-dependent manner with cancer cells having a stronger impact at low doses. Copyright © 2004 S. Karger AG, Basel [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This international multicenter study was designed to evaluate the technical performance of the new double-monoclonal, single-step Elecsys neuron-specific enolase (NSE) enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and to assess its utility as a sensitive and specific test for the diagnosis of small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). Intra- and interassay coefficients of variation, determined in five control or serum specimens in six laboratories, ranged from 0.7 to 5.3 (inter-laboratory median: 1.3%) and from 1.3 to 8.5 (inter-laboratory median: 3.4%), respectively. Laboratory-to-laboratory comparability was excellent with respect to recovery and inter-assay coefficients of variation. The test was linear between 0.0 and 320 ng/ml (highest measured concentration). There was a significant correlation between NSE concentrations measured using the Elecsys NSE and the established Cobas Core NSE EIA II in all subjects (n = 723) and in patients with lung cancer (n = 333). However, NSE concentrations were systematically lower (approximately 9%) with the Elecsys NSE than with the comparison test. Based on a specificity of 95% in comparison with the group suffering from benign lung diseases (n = 183), the cut-off value for the discrimination between malignant and benign conditions was set at 21.6 ng/ml. NSE was raised in 73.4% of SCLC patients (n = 188) and was significantly higher (p < 0.01) in extensive (87.8%) as opposed to limited disease (56.7%). NSE was also elevated in 16.0% of the cases with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC, n = 374). It is concluded that the Elecsys NSE EIA is a reliable and accurate diagnostic procedure for the measurement of NSE in serum samples. The special merits of this new assay are the wide measuring range (according to manufacturer's declaration up to 370 ng/ml) and a short incubation time of 18 min. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: High mobility group box 1 protein (HMGB1) is known for its significant elevation in a multitude of tumors and benign diseases. In this study, we investigated the relevance of soluble HMGB1 for the prediction and monitoring of therapy response as well as the estimation of prognosis in advanced lung cancer. Materials and Methods: In a retrospective study, HMGB1 levels were assessed by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in the sera of 96 patients with advanced lung cancer (79 non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC); 14 small cell lung carcinoma (SCLC), 3 Mesothelioma) prior to cycles 1, 2, and 3 of chemotherapy and correlated with radiological therapy response after 2 and 4 cycles as well as with overall survival. In addition, HMGB1 was compared with established tumor markers cytokeratin 19-fragments (CYFRA 21-1), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and neuron specific enolase (NSE). Results: While pretherapeutic HMGB1 levels were not predictive or prognostically relevant in NSCLC patients, HMGB1 values prior to cycles 2 and 3 as well as kinetics from cycle 1 to 2 discriminated significantly between patients with good (remission and stable disease) and poor response (progression). Performance of HMGB1 in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses of NSCLC patients, with areas under the curve (AUCs) of 0.690 at cycle 2 and 0.794 at cycle 3 as well as sensitivities of 34.4% and 37.5%, respectively, for progression at 90% specificity, was comparable with the best tumor-associated antigen CYFRA 21-1 (AUCs 0.719 and 0.799; sensitivities of 37.5% and 41.7%, respectively). Furthermore, high concentrations of HMGB1 at cycles 2 and 3 were associated with shorter overall survival in NSCLC patients. Conclusion: Soluble HMGB1 is a promising biomarker for prediction of therapy response and prognosis in advanced NSCLC patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An editorial about the challenges in the detection of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is presented. The authors addressed the prevalence of lung cancer worldwide. They discussed the involvement of circulating biomarkers in the management of lung cancer. They explained the difference between small and non-small cell lung cancer.

In squamous cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma antigen levels are often elevated. This multi-center study evaluated the technical performance of a new Elecsys® squamous cell carcinoma assay, which measures serum squamous cell carcinoma antigen 1 and 2 levels in an equimolar manner, and investigated the potential of squamous cell carcinoma antigen for differential diagnosis of cervical, lung, and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.Assay precision and method comparison experiments were performed across three European sites. Reference ranges for reportedly healthy individuals were determined using samples from banked European and Chinese populations. Differential diagnosis experiments determined whether cervical, lung, or head and neck cancer could be differentiated from apparently healthy, benign, or other malignant cohorts using squamous cell carcinoma antigen levels alone. Squamous cell carcinoma antigen cut-off levels were calculated based on squamous cell carcinoma antigen levels at 95% specificity. Repeatability coefficients of variation across nine analyte concentrations were ≤5.3%, and intermediate precision coefficients of variation were ≤10.3%. Method comparisons showed good correlations with Architect and Kryptor systems (slopes of 1.1 and 1.5, respectively). Reference ranges for 95th percentiles for apparently healthy individuals were 2.3 ng/mL (95% confidence interval: 1.9–3.8; European cohort, n = 153) and 2.7 ng/mL (95% confidence interval: 2.2–3.3; Chinese cohort, n = 146). Strongest differential diagnosis results were observed for cervical squamous cell carcinoma: receiver operating characteristic analysis showed that squamous cell carcinoma antigen levels (2.9 ng/mL cut-off) differentiate cervical squamous cell carcinoma (n = 127) from apparently healthy females (n = 286; area under the curve: 86.2%; 95% confidence interval: 81.8–90.6; sensitivity: 61.4%; specificity: 95.6%), benign diseases (n = 187; area under the curve: 86.3%; 95% confidence interval: 81.2–91.3; sensitivity: 61.4%; specificity: 95.0%), and other cervical cancers (n = 157; area under the curve: 78.9%; 95% confidence interval: 70.8–87.1; sensitivity: 61.4%; specificity: 86.7%). Squamous cell carcinoma may also aid in the differential diagnosis of lung cancer. The Elecsys squamous cell carcinoma assay exhibited good technical performance and is suitable for differential diagnosis of cervical squamous cell carcinoma in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]