4.6 Article

Serum CXCL8 and Its Specific Receptor (CXCR2) in Gastric Cancer

期刊

CANCERS
卷 13, 期 20, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cancers13205186

关键词

chemokines; gastric cancer; receptors for chemokines

类别

资金

  1. Medical University of Bialystok, Poland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study suggests that serum CXCL8 and CXCR2 concentrations are significantly higher in gastric cancer patients compared to healthy controls, with CXCL8 showing the highest diagnostic sensitivity among all tested proteins. Serum CXCL8 levels are indicated as a significant risk factor for gastric cancer occurrence and are a promising candidate for a biomarker in gastric cancer diagnosis.
Gastric cancer (GC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. This malignancy is usually diagnosed at an advanced stage. Therefore, novel biomarkers useful in the early detection of GC are sorely needed. Some authors suggest the role of chemokines and their specific receptors in GC pathogenesis. The aim of the study was to investigate whether serum CXCL8 and its receptor (CXCR2) might be considered as potential candidates for biomarkers in the diagnosis and prognosis of GC. The study included 98 subjects: 64 GC patients and 34 healthy volunteers. CXCL8 and CXCR2 concentrations were assessed by the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) method. Serum CXCL8 and CXCR2 concentrations were significantly higher in GC patients than in healthy controls, similar to the well-established tumor marker (CA19-9) and marker of inflammation (CRP). Diagnostic sensitivity of CXCL8 was the highest among all proteins tested and increased for the combined assessment with CA19-9. The area under the ROC curve for CXCL8 was higher than those for CXCR2 and classical tumor markers. Serum CXCL8 levels were indicated as a significant risk factor of GC occurrence. Our findings suggest that serum CXCL8 is a promising candidate for a biomarker in GC diagnosis and might be used as a significant predictor of GC risk.

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