4.7 Article

Blood-based Migration Signature Biomarker Panel Discriminates Early Stage New Onset Diabetes related Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma from Type 2 Diabetes

Journal

CLINICA CHIMICA ACTA
Volume 551, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2023.117567

Keywords

Early Detection; Biomarkers; Pancreatic Cancer; Blinded Validation; Diabetes

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study identified potential blood-based biomarkers, including tissue factor pathway inhibitor (TFPI), tenascin C (TNC-FNIII-C), and CA 19-9, for distinguishing PDAC-NOD from T2DM. The migration signature panel showed improved performance in discriminating PDAC-NOD and warrants further validation for high-risk group stratification.
Background and aims: While type 2 diabetes is a well-known risk factor for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), PDAC-induced new-onset diabetes (PDAC-NOD) is a manifestation of underlying PDAC. In this study, we sought to identify potential blood-based biomarkers for distinguishing PDAC-NOD from type 2 diabetes (T2DM) without PDAC.Materials and methods: By ELISA analysis, a migration signature biomarker panel comprising tissue factor pathway inhibitor (TFPI), tenascin C (TNC-FNIII-C) and CA 19-9 was analyzed in plasma samples from 50 PDACNOD and 50 T2DM controls.Results: Both TFPI (area under the curve (AUC) 0.71) and TNC-FNIII-C (AUC 0.69) outperformed CA 19-9 (AUC 0.60) in distinguishing all stages of PDAC-NOD from T2DM controls. The combined panel showed an AUC of 0.82 (95% CI = 0.73-0.90) (p = 0.002). In the PDAC-NOD early stage II samples, the three biomarkers had an AUC of 0.84 (95% CI = 0.73-0.93) vs CA 19-9, AUC = 0.60, (95% CI = 0.45-0.73), which also improved significance (p = 0.0123).Conclusion: The migration signature panel adds significantly to CA 19-9 to discriminate PDAC-NOD from T2DM controls and warrants further validation for high-risk group stratification.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available