4.7 Article

Macrophage inhibitory cytokine-1/growth differentiation factor-15 as a predictor of colonic neoplasia

期刊

ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
卷 46, 期 3, 页码 347-354

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/apt.14156

关键词

-

资金

  1. St. Vincent's Clinic Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Serum macrophage inhibitory cytokine-1 (MIC-1/GDF15) concentration has been associated with colonic adenomas and carcinoma. Aims: To determine whether circulating MIC-1/GDF15 serum concentrations are higher in the presence of adenomas and whether the level decreases after excision. Methods: Patients were recruited prospectively from a single centre and stratified into five groups: no polyps (NP); hyperplastic polyps (HP); sessile serrated ademona (SSA); adenomas (AP); and colorectal carcinoma (CRC). Blood samples were collected immediately before and 4 weeks after colonoscopy. MIC-1/GDF15 serum levels were quantified using ELISA. Results: Participants (n=301) were stratified as: NP; n=116 (52%), HP; n=37 (12%), SSA; n=19 (7%), AP; n=68 (23%); and CRC; n=3 (1%). Patients were excluded from the study due to nondiagnostic pathology (n=9, 3%) and exclusion criteria (n=20, 6%). In the 272 remaining subjects (M=149; F=123), age (P=.005), history of colonic polyps (P=.003) and family history of colonic polyps (P=.002) were associated with presence of adenomas. Baseline median MIC-1/GDF15 serum levels increased significantly from NP 609 (460-797) pg/mL, HP 582 (466-852) pg/mL, SSA 561 (446-837) pg/mL to AP 723 (602-1122) pg/mL and CRC 1107 (897-1107) pg/mL; (P <.001). In the pre-and postpolypectomy paired adenoma samples median MIC-1/ GDF15 reduced significantly from 722 (603-1164) pg/mL to 685 (561-944) pg/mL (P=. 002). A ROC analysis for serum MIC-1/GDF15 to identify adenomatous polyps indicated an area under the curve of 0.71. Conclusions: Our data suggest that serum MIC-1/GDF15 has the diagnostic characteristics to increase the detection of colonic neoplasia and improve screening.

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

4.7
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