4.6 Article

Oral squamous cell carcinoma detection by salivary biomarkers in a Serbian population

期刊

ORAL ONCOLOGY
卷 47, 期 1, 页码 51-55

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2010.10.009

关键词

Oral cancer; Biomarkers; Salivary diagnostics; Proteome; Transcriptome

资金

  1. National Institute of Dental Research/National Institute of Health [R01 DE017170]
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DENTAL &CRANIOFACIAL RESEARCH [R01DE017170] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Early detection of oral squamous cell cancer (OSCC) is the key to improve the low 5-year survival rate. Using proteomic and genomic technologies we have previously discovered and validated salivary OSCC markers in American patients. The question arises whether these biomarkers are discriminatory in cohorts of different ethnic background. Six transcriptome (DUSP1, IL8, IL1B, OAZ1, SAT1, and S100P) and three proteome (IL1B, IL8, and M2BP) biomarkers were tested on 18 early and 17 late stage OSCC patients and 51 healthy controls with quantitative PCR and ELISA. Four transcriptome (IL8, IL1B, SAT1, and S100P) and all proteome biomarkers were significantly elevated (p < 0.05) in OSCC patients. The combination of markers yielded an AUC of 0.86, 0.85 and 0.88 for OSCC total, T1-T2, and T3-T4, respectively. The sensitivity/specificity for OSCC total was 0.89/0.78, for T1-T2 0.67/0.96, and for T3-T4 0.82/0.84. In conclusion, seven of the nine salivary biomarkers (three proteins and four mRNAs) were validated and performed strongest in late stage cancer. Patient-based salivary diagnostics is a highly promising approach for OSCC detection. This study shows that previously discovered and validated salivary OSCC biomarkers are discriminatory and reproducible in a different ethnic cohort. These findings support the feasibility to implement multi-center, multi-ethnicity clinical trials towards the pivotal validation of salivary biomarkers for OSCC detection. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据