BACKGROUND & AIMS: Levels of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), and cancer antigen 125 (CA-125) in blood are used as markers to determine the response of patients with cancer to therapy, but are not used to identify patients with pancreatic cancer. METHODS: We obtained blood samples from 504 patients undergoing pancreatic surveillance from 2002 through 2018 who did not develop pancreatic cancer and measured levels of the tumor markers CA19-9, CEA, CA-125, and thrombospondin-2. Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in FUT3, FUT2, ABO, and GAL3ST2 that have been associated with levels of tumor markers were used to establish SNP-defined ranges for each tumor marker. We also tested the association between additional SNPs (in FUT6, MUC16, B3GNT3, FAM3B, and THBS2) with levels of tumor markers. To calculate the diagnostic specificity of each SNP-defined range, we assigned the patients under surveillance into training and validation sets. After determining the SNP-defined ranges, we determined the sensitivity of SNP-adjusted tests for the tumor markers, measuring levels in blood samples from 245 patients who underwent resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) from 2010 through 2017. RESULTS: A level of CA19-9 that identified patients with PDAC with 99% specificity had 52.7% sensitivity. When we set the cutoff levels of CA19-9 based on each SNP, the test for CA19-9 identified patients with PDAC with 60.8% sensitivity and 98.8% specificity. Among patients with FUT3 alleles that encode a functional protein, levels of CA19-9 greater than the SNP-determined cutoff values identified 66.4% of patients with PDAC, with 99.3% specificity. In the validation set, levels of CEA varied among patients with vs without SNP in FUT2, by blood group, and among smokers vs nonsmokers; levels of CA-125 varied among patients with vs without the SNP in GAL3ST2. The use of the SNPs to define the ranges of CEA and CA-125 did not significantly increase the diagnostic accuracy of the assays for these proteins. Combining data on levels of CA19-9 and CEA, CA19-9 and CA-125, or CA19-9 and thrombospondin-2 increased the sensitivity of detection of PDAC, but slightly reduced specificity. CONCLUSIONS: Including information on SNPs associated with levels of CA19-9, CEA, and CA-125 can improve the diagnostic accuracy of assays for these tumor markers in the identification of patients with PDAC. Clinicaltrials.gov no: NCT02000089.

No abstract

Background: Cisplatin is an important anticancer agent in cancer chemotherapy, but when resistant cells appear, treatment becomes difficult and prognosis is poor. Objective: In this study we investigated the gene expression profile in cisplatin sensitive and resistant cells, and identified the genes involved in cisplatin resistance. Methods: Comparison of gene expression profiles revealed that UBE2L6 mRNA is highly expressed in resistant cells. To elucidate whether UBE2L6 is involved in the acquisition of cisplatin resistance, UBE2L6-overexpressing cells established from cisplatin-sensitive cells and UBE2L6-silenced cells established from cisplatin-resistant cells were generated, and the sensitivity of cisplatin was examined. Results: The sensitivity of the UBE2L6- overexpressing cells did not change compared with the control cells, but the UBE2L6-silenced cells were sensitized to cisplatin. To elucidate the mechanism of UBE2L6 in cisplatin resistance, we compared the gene expression profiles of UBE2L6-silenced cells and control cells and found that the level of ABCB6 mRNA involved in cisplatin resistance was decreased. Moreover, ABCB6 promoter activity was partially suppressed in UBE2L6-silenced cells. Conclusion: These results suggest that cisplatin-resistant cells have upregulated UBE2L6 expression and contribute to cisplatin resistance by regulating ABCB6 expression at the transcriptional level. UBE2L6 might be a molecular target that overcomes cisplatin resistance.

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) measurements can be used to estimate tumor burden, but avoiding false-positive results is challenging. Herein, digital next-generation sequencing (NGS) is evaluated as a ctDNA detection method. Plasma KRAS and GNAS hotspot mutation levels were measured in 140 subjects, including 67 with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and 73 healthy and disease controls. To limit chemical modifications of DNA that yield false-positive mutation calls, plasma DNA was enzymatically pretreated, after which DNA was aliquoted for digital detection of mutations (up to 384 aliquots/ sample) by PCR and NGS. A digital NGS score of two SDs above the mean in controls was considered positive. Thirty-seven percent of patients with pancreatic cancer, including 31% of patients with stages I/II disease, had positive KRAS codon 12 ctDNA scores; only one patient had a positive GNAS mutation score. Two disease control patients had positive ctDNA scores. Low-normalerange digital NGS scores at mutation hotspots were found at similar levels in healthy and disease controls, usually at sites of cytosine deamination, and were likely the result of chemical modification of plasma DNA and NGS error rather than true mutations. Digital NGS detects mutated ctDNA in patients with pancreatic cancer with similar yield to other methods. Detection of low-level, true-positive ctDNA is limited by frequent low-level detection of false-positive mutation calls in plasma DNA from controls.