4.6 Article

Clinical and Tumor Characteristics of Patients with High Serum Levels of Growth Differentiation Factor 15 in Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

期刊

CANCERS
卷 13, 期 19, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cancers13194842

关键词

growth differentiation factor 15; pancreatic cancer; anorexia; cancer cachexia

类别

资金

  1. Anderson Cancer Center Support Grant [5 P30 CA016672-40]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that high serum GDF-15 levels were associated with cachexia symptoms in advanced pancreatic cancer patients, as well as with the activation of signaling pathways involving Akt and JNK in the tumor.
We aimed to evaluate the association of circulating growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15) with cachexia symptoms and the biological activity of advanced pancreatic cancer (APC). Treatment-naive patients with liver metastasis of APC or with benign pancreatic disease were retrospectively analyzed. Clinical data, blood samples, and biopsy specimens of liver metastasis were collected prior to anti-cancer treatment. Serum GDF-15 levels and multiple protein expressions in lysates extracted from liver metastasis were measured by enzyme-linked immuno-sorbent assay and reverse-phase protein array, respectively. The cut-off for serum GDF-15 was determined as 3356.6 pg/mL, the mean plus two standard deviations for benign pancreatic disease. The high-GDF-15 group was characterized as showing low Karnofsky performance status (KPS) (p = 0.037), poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS) (p = 0.049), severe appetite loss (p = 0.011), and high serum levels of carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (p = 0.019) and C-reactive protein (p = 0.009). Tumors of the high-GDF-15 group expressed high levels of phosphorylated (p)JNK (p = 0.007) and pAkt (p = 0.040). APC patients with high serum GDF-15 showed signatures of cachexia and activation of the signaling pathways involving Akt and JNK in the tumor. This study indicated circulating GDF-15 could be associated with cachectic symptoms in APC.

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