Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most common cancer in men worldwide. A large proportion of PCa are latent, never destined to progress or affect the patients’ life. It is of utmost importance to identify which PCa are destined to progress and which would benefit from an early radical treatment. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) remains the most used test to detect PCa. Its limited specificity and an elevated rate of overdiagnosis are the main problems associated with PSA testing. New PCa biomarkers have been proposed to improve the accuracy of PSA in the management of early PCa. Commercially available biomarkers such as PCA3 score, Prostate Health Index (PHI), and the four-kallikrein panel are used with the purpose of reducing the number of unnecessary biopsies and providing information related to the aggressiveness of the tumor. The relationship with PCa aggressiveness seems to be confirmed by PHI and the four-kallikrein panel, but not by the PCA3 score. In this review, we also summarize new promising biomarkers, such as PSA glycoforms, TMPRSS2:ERG fusion gene, microRNAs, circulating tumor cells, androgen receptor variants, and PTEN gene. All these emerging biomarkers could change the management of early PCa, offering more accurate results than PSA. Nonetheless, large prospective studies comparing these new biomarkers among them are required to know their real value in PCa detection and prognosis.

Monitoring of graft function is essential during the first months after liver transplantation (LT), but current liver function tests (LFTs) lack the specificity and sensitivity to ensure an efficient diagnosis of acute rejection (AR). Recently, donor-derived cell-free DNA (ddcfDNA) has emerged as a noninvasive biomarker to assess graft integrity. This study evaluated the feasibility of measuring the ddcfDNA through short tandem repeat (STR) analysis by quantitative fluorescent-polymerase chain reaction (QF-PCR) and to assess the role of the concentration and fragment size of total cfDNA as AR biomarkers. The total concentration and fragment size of cfDNA and the ddcfDNA percentage were monitored in plasma of 20 patients without rejection and 7 patients with T-cell-mediated AR during the first 3 months after LT. The median ddcfDNA percentage was 3-fold higher before AR diagnosis (34.8%; P < 0.001) and moderately higher at AR confirmatory diagnosis (23.8%; P = 0.049) compared with that of nonrejector patients (10.6%), showing a better performance (area under the curve = 84.6%) than conventional LFTs to predict the risk of rejection within the first 2 weeks following LT. The fraction of 100-250-bp cfDNA fragments was higher at AR diagnosis compared with that of nonrejector patients (68.0% versus 57.9%, P = 0.02). STR amplification by QF-PCR may be an alternative strategy for rapid ddcfDNA quantification, which is easily implementable in clinical laboratories. The results of this pilot study indicate that ddcfDNA increases very early, even 1-2 weeks before the diagnosis of AR, and so it could be useful as a prognostic biomarker in improving patient risk stratification.

(1) OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of CA125, HE4, ROMA index and CPH-I index to preoperatively identify epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) or metastatic cancer in the ovary (MCO). (2) METHODS: single center retrospective study, including women with a diagnosis of adnexal mass. We obtained the AUC, sensitivity, specificity and predictive values were of HE4, CA125, ROMA and CPH-I for the diagnosis of EOC and MCO. Subgroup analysis for women harboring adnexal masses with inconclusive diagnosis of malignancy by ultrasound features and Stage I EOC was performed. (3) RESULTS: 1071 patients were included, 852 (79.6%) presented benign/borderline tumors and 219 (20.4%) presented EOC/MCO. AUC for HE4 was higher than for CA125 (0.91 vs. 0.87). No differences were seen between AUC of ROMA and CPH-I, but they were both higher than HE4 AUC. None of the tumor markers alone achieved a sensitivity of 90%; HE4 was highly specific (93.5%). ROMA showed a sensitivity and specificity of 91.1% and 84.6% respectively, while CPH-I showed a sensitivity of 91.1% with 79.2% specificity. For patients with inconclusive diagnosis of malignancy by ultrasound features and with Stage I EOC, ROMA showed the best diagnostic performance (4) CONCLUSIONS: ROMA and CPH-I perform better than tumor markers alone to identify patients harboring EOC or MCO. They can be helpful to assess the risk of malignancy of adnexal masses, especially in cases where ultrasonographic diagnosis is challenging (stage I EOC, inconclusive diagnosis of malignancy by ultrasound features).

No abstract

Tumor markers are a heterogeneous group of substances released by cancer cells into bloodstream, but also expressed by healthy tissues. Thus, very small concentrations can be present in plasma and serum from healthy subjects. Cancer patients tend to show increased levels correlating with tumor bulk, but false positive results could be present in patients with benign conditions. The correct interpretation of TM results could be challenging and many factors should be considered, from pre-analytical conditions to patient concomitant diseases. In this line, the Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine journal has made important contributions though several publications promoting the adequate use of TM and therefore improving patient safety. TM measurement offers valuable information for cancer patient management in different clinical contexts, such as helping diagnosis, estimating prognosis, facilitating early detection of relapse and monitoring therapy response. Our review analyzes the clinical usefulness of tumor markers applied in most frequent epithelial tumors, based on recent evidence and guidelines.