3.8 Review

A concise review of serum markers for hepatocellular cancer

Journal

CANCER DETECTION AND PREVENTION
Volume 31, Issue 1, Pages 35-44

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cdp.2006.11.003

Keywords

hepatocellular carcinoma; serum markers; alpha-fetoprotein; GP73; proteomics; glycoproteornics; tumor-derived autoantibodies; des-gamma-carboxy-prothrombin; glypican-3; SELDI-TOF; alpha-L-fucosidase; transforming growth factor-betal; insulin-like growth factor-II; insulin-like growth factorbinding; protein-2; human cervical cancer oncogene; golgi protein 73; hepatocyte growth factor; KL-6; squamous cell carcinoma antigen; tissue; proteomics; serum proteomics; serum glycoproteomics; HCC-specific autoantibodies

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The rising incidence of hepatocellular cancer in the US and worldwide has sparked a renewed interest in HCC serum markers. HCC typically develops in patients with chronic liver disease and cirrhosis. It is in these target populations that serum markers are most urgently needed. Unfortunately, the currently available markers lack sensitivity and specificity. A number of novel candidate markers have recently been introduced. Methods: We performed a review of the literature (2001-2006) of traditional and novel serum markers for hepatocellular cancer. Results: Several promising new HCC markers have been identified over the past 5 years. They include single proteins, complex proteomics features, and tumor-specific autoantibodies. The excitement about the new markers is tempered by the realization that none of them have yet met the most stringent criteria defined by the Early Detection Research Network (EDRN). Conclusion: A new generation of HCC serum markers awaits validation in properly controlled clinical studies. (c) 2007 International Society for Preventive Oncology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available