Minichromosomal Maintenance Component Complex 5 (MCM5) as a Marker of Barrett's Esophagus-Related Neoplasia: A Feasibility Study.


Journal

Digestive diseases and sciences
ISSN: 1573-2568
Titre abrégé: Dig Dis Sci
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7902782

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
10 2019
Historique:
received: 18 02 2019
accepted: 27 03 2019
pubmed: 15 4 2019
medline: 8 5 2020
entrez: 15 4 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The endoscopic detection of esophageal cancer is suboptimal in both patients referred with dyspeptic symptoms and those enrolled in Barrett's surveillance programs. MCM5 expression in cells collected from gastric fluid may be correlated with the presence of dysplasia or adenocarcinoma. Analysis of this biomarker may improve the detection of cancer. Sixty-one patients were enrolled at a single UK referral center. From each patient, 5-10 ml of gastric fluid was aspirated endoscopically. Patients were categorized according to their histology, normal, non-dysplastic Barrett's (NDBE), high-grade dysplastic Barrett's (HGD), and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). All histology was confirmed by Seattle protocol biopsies or endoscopic mucosal resection. Samples were centrifuged, and the cell pellet was lysed. MCM5 expression levels were quantified using a proprietary immunoassay. The mean MCM5 expression was compared between groups by Kruskal-Wallis test. ROC curves were also used to assess diagnostic utility. The mean expression of MCM5 increases as patients progress from a normal esophagus to NDBE, HGD, and EAC (14.4; 49.8; 112.3; and 154.1, respectively). There was a significant difference in the MCM5 expression of patients with a normal esophagus compared to those with EAC (p = 0.04). There was a trend toward higher MCM5 expression in patients with EAC compared to those with NDBE (p = 0.34). MCM5 expression was a fair discriminator (AUC 0.70 [95% CI 0.57-0.83]) between patients without neoplasia (normal and NDBE) and those with early neoplasia (HGD and EAC). MCM5 expression in gastric fluid samples can differentiate patients with a histologically normal esophagus compared to those with early adenocarcinoma. Larger, powered studies are needed to assess whether it can be used to differentiate those with HGD from NDBE.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
The endoscopic detection of esophageal cancer is suboptimal in both patients referred with dyspeptic symptoms and those enrolled in Barrett's surveillance programs. MCM5 expression in cells collected from gastric fluid may be correlated with the presence of dysplasia or adenocarcinoma. Analysis of this biomarker may improve the detection of cancer.
METHODS
Sixty-one patients were enrolled at a single UK referral center. From each patient, 5-10 ml of gastric fluid was aspirated endoscopically. Patients were categorized according to their histology, normal, non-dysplastic Barrett's (NDBE), high-grade dysplastic Barrett's (HGD), and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). All histology was confirmed by Seattle protocol biopsies or endoscopic mucosal resection. Samples were centrifuged, and the cell pellet was lysed. MCM5 expression levels were quantified using a proprietary immunoassay. The mean MCM5 expression was compared between groups by Kruskal-Wallis test. ROC curves were also used to assess diagnostic utility.
RESULTS
The mean expression of MCM5 increases as patients progress from a normal esophagus to NDBE, HGD, and EAC (14.4; 49.8; 112.3; and 154.1, respectively). There was a significant difference in the MCM5 expression of patients with a normal esophagus compared to those with EAC (p = 0.04). There was a trend toward higher MCM5 expression in patients with EAC compared to those with NDBE (p = 0.34). MCM5 expression was a fair discriminator (AUC 0.70 [95% CI 0.57-0.83]) between patients without neoplasia (normal and NDBE) and those with early neoplasia (HGD and EAC).
CONCLUSION
MCM5 expression in gastric fluid samples can differentiate patients with a histologically normal esophagus compared to those with early adenocarcinoma. Larger, powered studies are needed to assess whether it can be used to differentiate those with HGD from NDBE.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30982210
doi: 10.1007/s10620-019-05607-5
pii: 10.1007/s10620-019-05607-5
doi:

Substances chimiques

Biomarkers 0
Cell Cycle Proteins 0
MCM5 protein, human 0

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

2815-2822

Références

Am J Pathol. 1999 Apr;154(4):965-73
pubmed: 10233832
Lancet. 1999 Oct 30;354(9189):1524-5
pubmed: 10551502
Am J Gastroenterol. 2000 May;95(5):1152-7
pubmed: 10811320
Am J Gastroenterol. 2000 Dec;95(12):3383-7
pubmed: 11151865
Hum Pathol. 2001 Apr;32(4):379-88
pubmed: 11331954
Gut. 2002 Mar;50(3):373-7
pubmed: 11839717
Annu Rev Biochem. 2002;71:333-74
pubmed: 12045100
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002 Jul 17;94(14):1071-9
pubmed: 12122098
Br J Cancer. 2004 Aug 16;91(4):714-9
pubmed: 15266314
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2005 Feb;129(2):177-80
pubmed: 15679415
Gut. 2005 Mar;54 Suppl 1:i6-12
pubmed: 15711008
Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2006 Apr;18(2):130-6
pubmed: 16495042
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006 May;4(5):566-72
pubmed: 16630761
Mol Cell Biol. 2007 Apr;27(8):3044-55
pubmed: 17296731
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009 Jul;7(7):736-42; quiz 710
pubmed: 19268726
N Engl J Med. 2009 May 28;360(22):2277-88
pubmed: 19474425
Gastroenterology. 2011 Aug;141(2):460-8
pubmed: 21679712
Gastrointest Endosc. 2014 Feb;79(2):242-56.e6
pubmed: 24079411
Gut. 2014 Jan;63(1):7-42
pubmed: 24165758
JAMA. 2014 Mar 26;311(12):1209-17
pubmed: 24668102
Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2015 Jul;31(4):316-20
pubmed: 26039723
Endosc Int Open. 2014 Jun;2(2):E46-50
pubmed: 26135259
Gastroenterology. 2016 Mar;150(3):599-607.e7; quiz e14-5
pubmed: 26619962
Gastroenterology. 1989 May;96(5 Pt 1):1249-56
pubmed: 2703113
Gastroenterology. 2017 Feb;152(3):564-570.e4
pubmed: 27818167
Frontline Gastroenterol. 2019 Jan;10(1):7-15
pubmed: 30651952
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 Dec 8;95(25):14932-7
pubmed: 9843993

Auteurs

M Everson (M)

Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.
Department of Gastroenterology, University College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, 235 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BU, UK.

C Magee (C)

Department of Gastroenterology, University College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, 235 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BU, UK.

D Alzoubaidi (D)

Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.
Department of Gastroenterology, University College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, 235 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BU, UK.

S Brogden (S)

Department of Gastroenterology, University College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, 235 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BU, UK.

D Graham (D)

Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.
Department of Gastroenterology, University College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, 235 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BU, UK.

L B Lovat (LB)

Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.
Department of Gastroenterology, University College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, 235 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BU, UK.

M Novelli (M)

Department of Pathology, University College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

R Haidry (R)

Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK. rehan.haidry@nhs.net.
Department of Gastroenterology, University College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, 235 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BU, UK. rehan.haidry@nhs.net.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH