Search

Background: High mobility group box 1 (HMGB1), soluble receptor of advanced glycation end products (sRAGE) and programmed cell death markers PD-1 and PD-L1 are immunogenic serum biomarkers that may serve as novel diagnostic tools for cancer diagnosis., Methods: We investigated the four markers in sera of 231 women, among them 76 with ovarian cancer, 87 with benign diseases and 68 healthy controls, using enzyme immunoassays. Discrimination between groups was calculated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and sensitivities at fixed 90% and 95% specificities., Results: HMGB1 levels were significantly elevated and sRAGE levels were decreased in cancer patients as compared to benign and healthy controls. In consequence, the ratio of HMGB1 and sRAGE discriminated best between diagnostic groups. The areas under the curve (AUCs) of the ROC curves for differentiation of cancer vs. healthy were 0.77 for HMGB1, 0.65 for sRAGE and 0.78 for the HMGB1/sRAGE ratio, and slightly lower for the differentiation of cancer vs. benigns with 0.72 for HMGB1, 0.61 for sRAGE and 0.74 for the ratio of both. The highest sensitivities for cancer detection at 90% specificity versus benign diseases were achieved using HMGB1 with 41.3% and the HMGB1/sRAGE ratio with 39.2%, followed by sRAGE with 18.9%. PD-1 showed only minor and PD-L1 no power for discrimination between ovarian cancer and benign diseases., Conclusion: HMGB1 and sRAGE have differential diagnostic potential for ovarian cancer detection and warrant inclusion in further validation studies.

Excellent pre-analytical stability is an essential precondition for reliable molecular profiling of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in oncological diagnostics. Therefore, in vitro degradation of ctDNA and the additional release of contaminating genomic DNA from lysed blood cells must be prevented. Streck Cell-Free DNA blood collection tubes (cfDNA BCTs) have proposed advantages over standard K 2 EDTA tubes, but mainly have been tested in healthy individuals. Blood was collected from cancer patients ( n = 53) suffering from colorectal ( n = 21), pancreatic ( n = 11), and non-small-cell lung cancer ( n = 21) using cfDNA BCT tubes and K 2 EDTA tubes that were processed immediately or after 3 days (BCTs) or 6 hours (K 2 EDTA) at room temperature. The cfDNA isolated from these samples was characterized in terms of yield using LINE-1 qPCR; the level of gDNA contamination; and the mutation status of KRAS, NRAS, and EGFR genes using BEAMing ddPCR. CfDNA yield and gDNA levels were comparable in both tube types and were not affected by prolonged storage of blood samples for at least 3 days in cfDNA BCTs or 6 hours in K 2 EDTA tubes. In addition, biospecimens collected in K 2 EDTA tubes and cfDNA BCTs stored for up to 3 days demonstrated highly comparable levels of mutational load across all respective cancer patient cohorts and a wide range of concentrations. Our data support the applicability of clinical oncology specimens collected and stored in cfDNA BCTs for up to 3 days for reliable cfDNA and mutation analyses.

Background: Despite the significance of colonoscopy for early diagnosis of colorectal adenocarcinoma (CRC), population-wide screening remains challenging, mainly because of low acceptance rates. Herein, exosomal (exo-miR) and free circulating microRNA (c-miR) may be used as liquid biopsies in CRC to identify individuals at risk. Direct comparison of both compartments has shown inconclusive results, which is why we directly compared a panel of 10 microRNAs in this entity. Methods: Exo-miR and c-miR levels were measured using real-time quantitative PCR after isolation from serum specimens in a cohort of 69 patients. Furthermore, results were compared to established tumor markers CEA and CA 19-9. Results: Direct comparison of exo- and c-miR biopsy results showed significantly higher microRNA levels in the exosomal compartment (p < 0.001). Exo-Let7, exo-miR-16 and exo-miR-23 significantly differed between CRC and healthy controls (all p < 0.05), while no c-miR showed this potential. Sensitivity and specificity can be further enhanced using combinations of multiple exosomal miRNAs. Conclusions: Exosomal microRNA should be considered as a promising biomarker in CRC for future studies. Nonetheless, results may show interference with common comorbidities, which must be taken into account in future studies.

Background: MicroRNAs biomarkers have shown value for diagnosis and prognosis of various cancers. Combination with established tumor markers has rarely been done., Results: Breast cancer patients had significantly higher serum RNA loads (AUC 0.665), lower miR-34a (AUC 0.772), higher CEA and CA 15-3 levels (AUCs 0.717 and 0.721) than healthy controls. miR-34a correlated with tumor stage and hormone receptor status. There was no significant difference between groups for all other miRNAs. Combination of miR-34a with CEA or CA 15-3 led to improved AUCs of 0.844 and 0.800, respectively. Sensitivity of miR-34a and CA 15-3 reached 56.1% at 95% specificity. When compared with benign breast diseases, combination of miR-34a (AUC 0.719) and CEA (0.623) or CA 15-3 (0.619) resulted in improved performances (0.794 and 0.741). Sensitivity of miR-34a and CA 15-3 reached 53.7% at 95% specificity., Conclusion: While miR-34a provides valuable information for diagnosis and staging, combination with tumor markers CA15-3 or CEA improves the sensitivity for breast cancer detection., Patients and Methods: The diagnostic relevance of the miR-21, miR-34a, miR-92a, miR-155, miR-222 and miR-let-7c was tested in sera of 103 individuals (55 breast cancer, 20 benign breast diseases, 28 healthy controls). MiRNAs were detected by quantitative rt-PCR after extraction and reverse transcription. Cel-miR-39 and miR-16 were used for normalization. Established tumor markers CEA, CA 15-3, CA 19-9 and CA 125 were measured by automatized immunoassays. Diagnostic performance was tested by areas under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and sensitivities at 90% and 95% specificity., Competing Interests: CONFLICTS OF INTEREST The authors declare to have no conflicts of interests.