Lack of clinical utility of serum macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) for monitoring therapy response and estimating prognosis in advanced lung cancer.

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.

Soluble High Mobility Group Box 1 (HMGB1) Is a Promising Biomarker for Prediction of Therapy Response and Prognosis in Advanced Lung Cancer Patients.

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.

Novel serum nucleosomics biomarkers for the detection of colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: To improve prognosis of patients with colorectal cancer, powerful blood-based biomarkers enabling for early detection are needed. As genome-wide DNA hypomethylation is associated with carcinogenesis, and cell-free DNA, thought to be of tumor origin, is found in the circulation of patients with cancer, we investigated the relevance of 5-methylcytosine-modified DNA present in cell-free circulating nucleosomes as a serum biomarker using a convenient enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Serum samples from 90 individuals [24 with colorectal cancer (CRC), 10 with benign colorectal diseases (BCD) and 56 healthy controls (HC)] were tested for the differential diagnostic performance of a novel ELISA for nucleosome-bound methylated DNA. Methodical features, including intra- and interassay imprecision, were tested using serum pools. To minimize interassay variability, values were transformed to adjusted optical densities and robust statistics were applied for clinical evaluation. Findings were later re-evaluated on a set of 113 patients (49 CRC, 26 BCD and 38 HC). RESULTS: Intra- and interassay reproducibility were 3.4% and 15.3%, respectively. Levels of circulating methylated DNA were significantly decreased in CRC and BCD when compared to HC (p<0.05), although there was no difference between BCD and CRC. For discrimination of CRC from HC, the area under the curve in receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.78 and sensitivities were 33% at 95% specificity and 75% at 70% specificity, respectively. The findings were generally confirmed when validated in the second set of patients. CONCLUSION: Reduced methylation of DNA on circulating nucleosomes detected by ELISA can potentially serve as a diagnostic tool in patients with CRC.