16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Identification and verification of heat shock protein 60 as a potential serum marker for colorectal cancer

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major public health issue worldwide, and novel tumor markers may contribute to its efficient management by helping in early detection, prognosis or surveillance of disease. The aim of our study was to identify new serum biomarkers for CRC, and we followed a phased biomarker discovery and validation process to obtain an accurate preliminary assessment of potential clinical utility. We compared colonic tumors and matched normal tissue from 15 CRC patients, using two-dimensional difference gel electrophoresis (2D-DIGE), and identified 17 proteins that had significant differential expression. These results were further confirmed by western blotting for heat shock protein (HSP) 60, glutathione- S-transferase Pi, α-enolase, T-complex protein 1 subunit β, and leukocyte elastase inhibitor, and by immunohistochemistry for HSP60. Using mAbs raised against HSP60, we developed a reliable (precision of 5–15%) and sensitive (0.3 ng·mL −1) immunoassay for the detection of HSP60 in serum. Elevated levels of HSP60 were found in serum from CRC patients in two independent cohorts; the receiver-operating characteristic curve obtained in 112 patients with CRC and 90 healthy controls had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.70, which was identical to the AUC of carcinoembryonic antigen. Combination of serum markers improved clinical performance: the AUC of a three-marker logistic regression model combining HSP60, carcinoembryonic antigen and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 reached 0.77. Serum HSP60 appeared to be more specific for late-stage CRC; therefore, future studies should evaluate its utility for determining prognosis or monitoring therapy rather than early detection.

          Related collections

          Most cited references40

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry laboratory medicine practice guidelines for use of tumor markers in testicular, prostate, colorectal, breast, and ovarian cancers.

          Updated National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry (NACB) Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines for the use of tumor markers in the clinic have been developed. Published reports relevant to use of tumor markers for 5 cancer sites--testicular, prostate, colorectal, breast, and ovarian--were critically reviewed. For testicular cancer, alpha-fetoprotein, human chorionic gonadotropin, and lactate dehydrogenase are recommended for diagnosis/case finding, staging, prognosis determination, recurrence detection, and therapy monitoring. alpha-Fetoprotein is also recommended for differential diagnosis of nonseminomatous and seminomatous germ cell tumors. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is not recommended for prostate cancer screening, but may be used for detecting disease recurrence and monitoring therapy. Free PSA measurement data are useful for distinguishing malignant from benign prostatic disease when total PSA is <10 microg/L. In colorectal cancer, carcinoembryonic antigen is recommended (with some caveats) for prognosis determination, postoperative surveillance, and therapy monitoring in advanced disease. Fecal occult blood testing may be used for screening asymptomatic adults 50 years or older. For breast cancer, estrogen and progesterone receptors are mandatory for predicting response to hormone therapy, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 measurement is mandatory for predicting response to trastuzumab, and urokinase plasminogen activator/plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 may be used for determining prognosis in lymph node-negative patients. CA15-3/BR27-29 or carcinoembryonic antigen may be used for therapy monitoring in advanced disease. CA125 is recommended (with transvaginal ultrasound) for early detection of ovarian cancer in women at high risk for this disease. CA125 is also recommended for differential diagnosis of suspicious pelvic masses in postmenopausal women, as well as for detection of recurrence, monitoring of therapy, and determination of prognosis in women with ovarian cancer. Implementation of these recommendations should encourage optimal use of tumor markers.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Screening for colorectal cancer: a targeted, updated systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

            In 2002, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended colorectal cancer screening for adults 50 years of age or older but concluded that evidence was insufficient to prioritize among screening tests or evaluate newer tests, such as computed tomographic (CT) colonography. To review evidence related to knowledge gaps identified by the 2002 recommendation and to consider community performance of screening endoscopy, including harms. MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, expert suggestions, and bibliographic reviews. Eligible studies reported performance of colorectal cancer screening tests or health outcomes in average-risk populations and were at least of fair quality according to design-specific USPSTF criteria, as determined by 2 reviewers. Two reviewers verified extracted data. Four fecal immunochemical tests have superior sensitivity (range, 61% to 91%), and some have similar specificity (97% to 98%), to the Hemoccult II fecal occult blood test (Beckman Coulter, Fullerton, California). Tradeoffs between superior sensitivity and reduced specificity occur with high-sensitivity guaiac tests and fecal DNA, with other important uncertainties for fecal DNA. In settings with sufficient quality control, CT colonography is as sensitive as colonoscopy for large adenomas and colorectal cancer. Uncertainties remain for smaller polyps and frequency of colonoscopy referral. We did not find good estimates of community endoscopy accuracy; serious harms occur in 2.8 per 1000 screening colonoscopies and are 10-fold less common with flexible sigmoidoscopy. The accuracy and harms of screening tests were reviewed after only a single application. Fecal tests with better sensitivity and similar specificity are reasonable substitutes for traditional fecal occult blood testing, although modeling may be needed to determine all tradeoffs. Computed tomographic colonography seems as likely as colonoscopy to detect lesions 10 mm or greater but may be less sensitive for smaller adenomas. Potential radiation-related harms, the effect of extracolonic findings, and the accuracy of test performance of CT colonography in community settings remain uncertain. Emphasis on quality standards is important for implementing any operator-dependent colorectal cancer screening test.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Procedural success and complications of large-scale screening colonoscopy.

              Indirect evidence and modeling analyses suggest that colonoscopy may be the most cost-effective way to screen the average-risk population for colorectal neoplasia. However, the success and safety of primary colonoscopic screening has not been prospectively evaluated in a multicenter trial. Asymptomatic subjects age 50 to 75 years who had not undergone examination of the colon within 10 years were recruited from the general medicine clinics of 13 Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Centers. Eligible patients underwent colonoscopy by study coinvestigators, at which time all polyps were measured, photographed, and removed. Patients were contacted at 24 hours and 1 week to track procedure-related complications. Primary screening colonoscopy was performed in a cohort of 3196 asymptomatic subjects. A "good" preparation was reported in 81% of patients, and colonoscopy to the cecum was successful in 97.2% of cases. Mean insertion time to the cecum and total procedure times were 10.5 (8.7) and 30.6 (19.1) minutes, respectively. No preprocedural patient characteristics were identified that were predictive of an incomplete procedure. At least one polyp was resected in 1672 patients. There was no perforation and no death attributed to colonoscopy. Major morbidity considered to be definitely related to colonoscopy occurred in 9 of 3196 procedures (0.3%): lower GI bleeding requiring intervention (6), myocardial infarction and/or cerebrovascular accident (2), and thrombophlebitis (1). In subjects undergoing only diagnostic procedures, the major complication rate was 0.1%. Screening colonoscopy can be performed in multiple centers with a high degree of success and safety in large numbers of asymptomatic, average-risk men.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                FEBS J
                febs
                The Febs Journal
                Blackwell Publishing Ltd (Oxford, UK )
                1742-464X
                1742-4658
                December 2011
                : 278
                : 24
                : 4845-4859
                Affiliations
                [1 ]simpleImmunoproteomics Laboratory, Department of Biomarkers bioMérieux, Marcy l’étoile, France
                [2 ]simpleDepartment of Anatomo-pathology, Dijon University Hospital France
                [3 ]simpleUniversity of Paris 13 CNRS CSPBAT/LBPS, Bobigny, France
                [4 ]simpleDepartment of Clinical Trials bioMérieux, Marcy l’étoile, France
                [5 ]simpleDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Lyon Sud University Hospital Pierre Bénite, France
                [6 ]simpleUniversity of Lyon I EMR 3738, Oullins, France
                [7 ]simpleImmunology Laboratory, Saint-Etienne University Hospital, Center for Health Engineering UMR-CNRS 5148 LPMG and IFR 143 INSERM IFRESIS France
                Author notes
                G. Choquet-Kastylevsky, Immunoproteomics Laboratory, Department of Biomarkers, bioMérieux, Chemin de l'Orme, 69280 Marcy l’étoile, France Fax: +33 478 872 101 Tel: +33 478 877 599 E-mail: genevieve.choquet@ 123456biomerieux.com

                Re-use of this article is permitted in accordance with the Terms and Conditions set out at http://wileyonlinelibrary.com/onlineopen#OnlineOpen_Terms

                Article
                10.1111/j.1742-4658.2011.08385.x
                3265716
                21973086
                94a8972a-4bb7-4e90-a3fe-04aa20907b08
                © 2011 bioMérieux Journal compilation © 2011 FEBS

                Re-use of this article is permitted in accordance with the Creative Commons Deed, Attribution 2.5, which does not permit commercial exploitation.

                History
                : 11 August 2011
                : 20 September 2011
                : 21 September 2011
                Categories
                Original Articles

                Molecular biology
                marker validation,2d-dige,hsp60,colorectal cancer,serum biomarker
                Molecular biology
                marker validation, 2d-dige, hsp60, colorectal cancer, serum biomarker

                Comments

                Comment on this article