Tumor Biology - Volume 46, issue s1

Authors: Rupp, Alexander | Bahlmann, Sophie | Trimpop, Nicolai | von Pawel, Joachim | Holdenrieder, Stefan

Article Type: Research Article

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is a major burden to global health and is still among the most frequent and most lethal malignant diseases. Macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) is a proinflammatory cytokine involved in a variety of processes including tumorigenesis, formation of a tumor microenvironment and metastasis. It is therefore a potential prognostic biomarker in malignant diseases. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we investigated the applicability of MIF in serum samples as a biomarker in lung cancer. METHODS: In a retrospective approach, we analyzed the sera of 79 patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and 14 patients with …small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) before the start of chemotherapy, as well as before the second and third chemotherapy cycle, respectively. Serum MIF levels were measured using a sandwich immunoassay with a sulfo-tag-labelled detection antibody, while pro-gastrin releasing peptide (proGRP) levels were determined with an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. RESULTS: No difference in serum MIF levels between responders and non-responders to chemotherapy was observed at all time points, while proGRP levels were significantly lower in responders before the second chemotherapy cycle (p  = 0.012). No differences in biomarker levels depending on the histopathological classification of NSCLC patients was found. Moreover, in ROC curve analyses MIF was not able to distinguish between responders and non-responders to therapy. proGRP could differentiate between responders and non-responders before the second chemotherapy cycle (p  = 0.015) with sensitivities of 43% at 90% and 95% specificity, respectively. Likewise, proGRP yielded significantly longer survival times of patients with low proGRP concentrations before the second chemotherapy cycle (p  = 0.015) in Kaplan-Meier analyses, yet MIF showed no significant differences in survival times at all time points. Comparison with the biomarkers CEA and CYFRA 21-1 in the same cohort showed that these established biomarkers clearly performed superior to MIF and proGRP. CONCLUSIONS: From the present results, there is no indication that serum MIF may serve as a biomarker in prognosis and monitoring of response to therapy in lung cancer. Limitations of this study include its retrospective design, the inclusion of a larger NSCLC and a smaller SCLC subgroup, the classical chemotherapeutic treatment, the use of a non-diagnostic immunoassay (RUO-test) for MIF measurement and the lack of a validation cohort. Strengths of the study are its highly standardized procedures concerning sample collection, preanalytic treatment, measurements and quality control of the laboratory assays. Show more

Keywords: Biomarkers, MIF, lung cancer, proGRP

DOI: 10.3233/TUB-230006

Citation: Tumor Biology, vol. 46, no. s1, pp. S341-S353, 2024

Authors: Geiger, Kimberly | Joerger, Markus | Roessler, Max | Hettwer, Karina | Ritter, Christoph | Simon, Kirsten | Uhlig, Steffen | Holdenrieder, Stefan

Article Type: Research Article

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Programmed cell death receptors and ligands in cancer tissue samples are established companion diagnostics for immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapies. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relevance of soluble PD-1, PD-L1 and PD-L2 for estimating therapy response and prognosis in non-small cell lung cancer patients (NSCLC) undergoing platin-based combination chemotherapies. METHODS: In a biomarker substudy of a prospective, multicentric clinical trial (CEPAC-TDM) on advanced NSCLC patients, soluble PD-1, PD-L1 and PD-L2 were assessed in serial serum samples by highly sensitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays and correlated with radiological response after two cycles of chemotherapy and with overall survival …(OS). RESULTS: Among 243 NSCLC patients, 185 achieved response (partial remission and stable disease) and 58 non-response (progression). The distribution of PD-1, PD-L1 and PD-L2 at baseline (C1), prior to staging (C3) and the relative changes (C3/C1) greatly overlapped between the patient groups with response and non-response, thus hindering the discrimination between the two groups. None of the PD markers had prognostic value regarding OS. CONCLUSIONS: Neither soluble PD-1, PD-L1 nor PD-L2 did provide clinical utility for predicting response to chemotherapy and prognosis. Studies on the relevance of PD markers in ICI therapies are warranted. Show more

Keywords: Lung cancer, therapy monitoring, prediction, prognosis, PD-1, PD-L1, PD-L2

DOI: 10.3233/TUB-230015

Citation: Tumor Biology, vol. 46, no. s1, pp. S355-S367, 2024