Diagnostic Performance of Soluble Mesothelin and Megakaryocyte Potentiating Factor in Mesothelioma
Diagnostic Performance of Soluble Mesothelin and Megakaryocyte Potentiating Factor in Mesothelioma
复制标题
DOI：
10.1164/rccm.200907-1020oc
复制
发表时间：
2010-03-15
影响因子：
24.7
通讯作者：
van Meerbeeck, Jan P.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hollevoet, Kevin;Nackaerts, Kristiaan;van Meerbeeck, Jan P.
依据：可溶性间皮素（SM）目前是恶性胸膜间皮瘤（MPM）的参考血清生物标志物。巨核细胞增强因子（MPF），它起源于相同的前体蛋白，可能更敏感，但缺乏validation.Objectives：分析MPF作为MPM生物标志物的诊断性能，并将此性能与SM.Methods：共507名参与者被纳入六个队列：健康对照受试者（n = 101）、健康石棉暴露个体（n = 89）和患有良性石棉相关疾病（n = 123）、良性呼吸道疾病（n = 46）、肺癌（n = 63）MPM（n = 85）。分别使用Mesomark和Human MPF ELISA试剂盒分析血清的SM和MPF水平。测量和主要结果：SM和MPF水平在患有M PM的患者和来自每个其他队列的参与者之间存在显著差异（P < 0.001）。受试者工作特征曲线分析未显示两种标记物在区分MPM与所有队列的曲线下面积（AUC）方面存在显著差异（SM = 0.871，MPF = 0.849; P = 0.28）。在95%的特异性下，SM和MPF的敏感性分别为64%（临界值= 2.00 nmol/L）和68%（临界值= 12.38 ng/ml）。结合这两个标志物并没有提高诊断performance.Conclusions：在这项前瞻性多中心研究中，MPF被验证为一个高性能的MPM生物标志物。SM和MPF的相似AUC值以及灵敏度的有限差异表明两种血清生物标志物具有等同的诊断性能。
Rationale: Soluble mesothelin (SM) is currently the reference serum biomarker of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). Megakaryocyte potentiating factor (MPF), which originates from the same precursor protein, is potentially more sensitive, yet lacks validation.Objectives: To analyze the diagnostic performance of MPF as an MPM biomarker and compare this performance with SM.Methods: A total of 507 participants were enrolled in six cohorts: healthy control subjects (n = 101), healthy asbestos-exposed individuals (n = 89), and patients with benign asbestos-related disease (n = 123), benign respiratory disease (n = 46), lung cancer (n = 63), and MPM (n = 85). Sera were analyzed for SM and MPF levels using the Mesomark and Human MPF ELISA kit, respectively.Measurements and Main Results: SM and MPF levels differed significantly between patients with M PM and participants from each other cohort (P < 0.001). Receiver operating characteristics curve analysis did not reveal a significant difference between both markers in area under curve (AUC) for distinguishing MPM from all cohorts jointly (SM = 0.871, MPF = 0.849; P = 0.28). At 95% specificity, SM and MPF had a sensitivity of 64% (cutoff = 2.00 nmol/L) and 68% (cutoff = 12.38 ng/ml), respectively. Combining both markers did not improve the diagnostic performance.Conclusions: In this prospective multicenter study, MPF is validated as a highly performant MPM biomarker. The similar AUC values of SM and MPF, together with the limited difference in sensitivity, show that both serum biomarkers have an equivalent diagnostic performance.