CA11-19: a tumor marker for the detection of colorectal cancer

Overholt, Bergein F.; Wheeler, Donald J.; Jordan, Tommye

doi:10.1016/j.gie.2015.06.041

Cited by 15 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…if polyps)NoWerner et al (2016) [9]RetrospectiveCEAFerritin Seprase Osteoponti nAnti-p5336 CRC420 advanc ed adenom a, 1200 controlsSerum0.7844%90%NDYes (CEA sens 50%, spec 90%)Yes (early cancers were detected at least as well as late-stage)NoCEA + anti-p530.8558%90%Wang et al (2016) [61]ProspectiveCOL3A186 CRC21 enteritis, 3 polyps, 68 normalPlasmaEpithelial tissue0.920.97598.8%95.2%69.1%91.1%54.23 ng/m LYes (CEA: AUC 0.791, sens 70.2%, spec 73%)YesYes (mRNA)Rho et al (2016) [22]RetrospectiveBAG4 IL6ST** VWFEGFRBAG4 IL6ST VWFCD4460 CRC60 adenom as, 30 controlPlasma/Serum0.810.7940.9%42.44%90%NDNoNoYesOverholt et al (2016) [22]ProspectiveCA11-19131 CRC, 65 polyps, 182 benign disease, 103 controlsSerumND98%84%6.4 units/mLNoNoNoGezer et al (2015) [62]ProspectiveTrimethylations of lysine 9 on histone 3 (H3K9me3)Trimethylations of lysine 20 on histone 4 (H4K20me3)63 CRC40 cancer-freePlasmaNo significant difference between CRC and controls 0.715ND14.3%Yes95%NoNo…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this category, the more promising proteins were trefoil factor (TFF)3 [21], CA11-19 [22], a combination of insulin-like growth factor binding protein 2 (IGFBP2), Dickkopf-3(DKK3), and pyruvate kinase M2 (PKM2) [23] and DC-SIGN/DC-SIGNR [24]. …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…CA11-19 is a 701 amino acid glycoprotein which showed very promising results in detecting CRC in a study by Overholt et al [22]. It showed a sensitivity of only 40% in detecting adenomatous polyps, but again a larger study is needed to include more CRC and more patients with polyps.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It showed a sensitivity of only 40% in detecting adenomatous polyps, but again a larger study is needed to include more CRC and more patients with polyps. Other limitations for this study were that only one center was included and the authors indicated a larger multi-center study was being planned [22]. …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…From our review the following markers were found to have a sensitivity ≥ 70% and specificity ≥ 90%: interleukin 8 [25], NEAT_v2, SDC2 methylation of DNA [17], SEPT9 [14, 26], CA11-19 [22] and DC-SIGN/DC-SIGNR [24]. This cutoff sensitivity and specificity were used because they will discriminate markers which show promise in detecting CRC, and are comparable to the currently available biomarkers.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Systematic review of blood diagnostic markers in colorectal cancer

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the diagnostic ability of blood markers for colorectal cancer (CRC). A systematic review of the literature for diagnostic blood markers for primary human colorectal cancer over the last 5 years was performed. The primary outcome was to assess the diagnostic ability of these markers in diagnosing colorectal cancer. The secondary outcome was to see whether the marker was compared to other markers. The tertiary outcome was to assess diagnostic ability in early versus late CRC, including stage IV disease. We identified 51 studies (29 prospective, 14 retrospective, and 8 meta-analyses). The markers were divided in broadly four groups: nucleic acids (RNA/DNA/messenger RNA/microRNAs), cytokines, antibodies, and proteins. The most promising circulating markers identified among the nucleid acids were NEAT_v2 non-coding RNA, SDC2 methylated DNA, and SEPT9 methylated DNA. The most promising cytokine to detect CRC was interleukin 8, and the most promising circulating proteins were CA11-19 glycoprotein and DC-SIGN/DC-SIGNR. Sensitivities of these markers for detecting primary colorectal carcinoma ranged from 70 to 98% and specificities from 84 to 98.7%. The best studied blood marker was SEPT9 methylated DNA, which showed great variability with sensitivities ranging from 48.2 to 95.6% and specificities from 80 to 98.9%, making its clinical applicability challenging. If combined with fecal immunochemical test (FIT), the sensitivity improved from 78 to 94% in detecting CRC. Methylated SEPT9, methylated SDC2, and -SIGN/DC-SIGNR protein had better sensitivity and specificity than CEA or CA 19-9. With the exception of SEPT9 which is currently being implemented as a screening test for CRC all other markers lacked reproducibility and standardization and were studied in relatively small population samples.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Systematic review of blood diagnostic markers in colorectal cancer

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Where do we stand with screening for colorectal cancer and advanced adenoma based on serum protein biomarkers? A systematic review

Grancher,

Cuissy,

Girot

et al. 2024

Molecular Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has been proven to reduce both mortality and the incidence of this disease. Most CRC screening programs are based on fecal immunochemical tests (FITs), which have a low participation rate. Searching for blood protein biomarkers can lead to the development of a more accepted screening test. The aim of this systematic review was to compare the diagnostic potential of the most promising serum protein biomarkers. A systematic review based on PRISMA guidelines was conducted in the PubMed and Web of Science databases between January 2010 and December 2023. Studies assessing blood protein biomarkers for CRC screening were included. The sensitivity, specificity, and area under the ROC curve of each biomarker were collected. Among 4685 screened studies, 94 were considered for analysis. Most of them were case–control studies, leading to an overestimation of the performance of candidate biomarkers. The performance of no protein biomarker or combination of biomarkers appears to match that of the FIT. Studies with a suitable design and population, testing new assay techniques, or based on algorithms combining FIT with serum tests are needed.

show abstract