4.3 Article

Potential Prognostic Biomarkers of Pancreatic Cancer

Journal

PANCREAS
Volume 43, Issue 1, Pages 22-27

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MPA.0b013e3182a6867e

Keywords

PDAC; pancreatic duct fluid; cyst fluid; proteomic biomarkers; mucin; S100

Funding

  1. Fox Chase Cancer Center Biosample Repository Facility
  2. Histopathology Facility
  3. Bioinformatics Facility
  4. Driskill Foundation
  5. National Cancer Institute [CA119242, P30CA06927]
  6. Kresge Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives We evaluated whether pancreatic main duct fluid can provide protein biomarkers with prognostic value. Methods Mass spectrometry proteomics was applied to as little as 20 mu L of fluid collected at the time of tumor surgical resection. Biomarker proteins identified for 27 patients were correlated with clinical outcomes. Results Thirteen patients had pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas, 4 had intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm with in situ adenocarcinoma, 5 had ampullary adenocarcinomas, 2 had intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms, and 3 had benign diseases. In pathologic stage II or higher pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, moderate or high expression of S100A8 or S100A9 proteins was associated with a median disease recurrence-free survival of 5.8 months compared with 17.3 months in patients with low expression (P = 0.002). Median overall survival was 12.6 versus 27 months for patients with moderate to high versus low S100A8 and A9 expression (P = 0.02). Conclusions This analysis suggests distinct proteomic signatures for pancreatic cancer. Patients in our study with elevated levels of S100A8 or A9 in the ductal fluid, a near absence of pancreatic enzymes, and high levels of mucins were found to have significantly worse prognosis. Although further validation is needed to corroborate these findings, analysis of pancreatic ductal fluid is a promising tool for identifying biomarkers of interest.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available