Search

Tumor marker determinations are valuable tools for the guidance of breast cancer patients during the course of disease. They are assessed on diverse analytical platforms that may be associated with differences according to the methods applied and the clinical performance. To investigate the method dependency and clinical significance of breast cancer protein tumor markers, CEA, CA 15-3, CA 125, CA 19-9 and AFP were measured in a total of 154 biobanked samples from 77 patients with breast cancer, 10 with DCIS, 31 with benign breast diseases and 36 healthy controls using a Millipore multiplex biomarker panel (MP) and an automized version of the routinely used Vista LOCI technology. The markers were compared between methods and investigated for diagnostic performance. CEA, CA 15-3 and AFP showed good correlations between both platforms with correlation coefficients of R = 0.85, 0.85 and 0.92, respectively, in all samples, but similarly also in the various subgroups. CA 125 and CA 19-9 showed only moderate correlations (R = 0.71 and 0.56, respectively). Absolute values were significantly higher for CEA, CA 15-3, CA 125 and AFP in the Vista LOCI as compared with the MP method and vice versa for CA 19-9. The diagnostic performance for discrimination of breast cancer from healthy controls was similar for both methods with AUCs in ROC curves for CEA (MP 0.81, 95% CI 0.72–0.91; LOCI 0.81; 95% CI 0.72–0.91) and CA-15-3 (MP 0.75, 95% CI 0.65–0.86; LOCI 0.67, 95% CI 0.54–0.79). Similar results were obtained for the comparison of breast cancer with benign breast diseases regarding CEA (AUC MP 0.62, 95% CI 0.51–0.73; LOCI 0.64, 95% CI 0.53–0.74) and CA-15-3 (MP 0.70, 95% CI 0.6–0.81; LOCI 0.66, 95% CI 0.54–0.77). Both platforms show moderate to good method comparability for tumor markers with similar clinical performance. However, absolute levels in individual patients should be interpreted with care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Trauma is still a major cause of mortality in people < 50 years of age. Biomarkers are needed to estimate the severity of the condition and the patient outcome. Methods: Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) and further laboratory markers were determined in plasma and serum of 164 patients at time of admission to the emergency room. Among them were 64 patients with severe trauma (Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥ 16), 51 patients with moderate trauma (ISS < 16) and 49 patients with single fractures (24 femur neck and 25 ankle fractures). Disease severity was objectified by ISS and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS). Results: cfDNA levels in plasma and serum were significantly higher in patients with severe multiple trauma (SMT) than in those with moderate trauma (p = 0.002, p = 0.003, respectively) or with single fractures (each p < 0.001). CfDNA in plasma and serum correlated very strongly with each other (R = 0.91; p < 0.001). The AUC in ROC curves for identification of SMT patients was 0.76 and 0.74 for cfDNA in plasma and serum, respectively—this was further increased to 0.84 by the combination of cfDNA and hemoglobin. Within the group of multiple trauma patients, cfDNA levels were significantly higher in more severely injured patients and patients with severe traumatic brain injury (GCS ≤ 8 versus GCS > 8). Thirteen (20.3%) of the multiple trauma patients died during the first week after trauma. Levels of cfDNA were significantly higher in non-surviving patients than in survivors (p < 0.001), reaching an AUC of 0.81 for cfDNA in both, plasma and serum, which was further increased by the combination with hemoglobin and leukocytes. Conclusions: cfDNA is valuable for estimation of trauma severity and prognosis of trauma patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]