Histopathological and Prognostic Evaluation of Immunohistochemical Findings in Colorectal Cancer

Use of Tumor Markers in the Management of Head and Neck Cancer

Serologic tumor markers have been evaluated in the diagnosis, management and follow-up of patients with head and neck cancer. However, to the authors’ knowledge no tumor marker has yet been shown to be useful for monitoring the response to chemotherapy in this type of disease, in particular for undifferentiated tumors. The pretreatment levels of CEA, TPA, SCC and ferritin were evaluated in 98 patients with advanced head and neck cancer. Of this group 64 patients were studied sequentially every month during planned chemotherapy and three weeks after treatment using standard commercial kits. The results showed the following sensitivity values: TPA 50%, CEA 36%, SCC 34% and ferritin 19%. The incidence and magnitude of the marker elevations were correlated with the extent of disease. In patients with squamous cell cancer SCC and CEA were elevated (by 68% and 54%, respectively) in tumors with good differentiation (G1), but only by 13% (both markers) in tumors classified as poorly differentiated (G3). CEA, SCC and ferritin serum levels were not correlated with response to chemotherapy, while TPA values correlated with the clinical response to treatment in 100% of patients with undifferentiated cancer and in 75% of those with squamous cell cancer. Our data indicate that in patients with head and neck cancer TPA appears to be a sensitive marker, followed in decreasing order of sensitivity by CEA, SCC and ferritin. However, SCC and CEA seem to be the most suitable markers for squamous cell cancer and in particular for more differentiated tumors (G1). Finally, TPA has proved to be a useful marker for monitoring the response to chemotherapy in patients with head and neck cancer, in particular for undifferentiated tumors.

Predictive performance of TPA testing for recurrent disease during follow-up after curative intent surgery for colorectal carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present study was to investigate the predictive performance of serial tissue polypeptide antigen (TPA) testing after curative intent resection for detection of recurrence of colorectal malignancy.

METHODS

Serum samples were obtained in 572 patients from three different hospitals during follow-up after surgery. Test characteristics of serial TPA testing were assessed using a cut-off value of 75 U/L. The relation with American Joint Committee on Cancer stage and the potential additive value of tissue polypeptide antigen testing upon standard carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) testing were investigated.

RESULTS

The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of TPA for recurrent disease was 0.70, indicating marginal usefulness as a predictive test. Forty percent of cases that were detected by CEA testing would have been missed by TPA testing alone, whilst most cases missed by CEA were also not detected by TPA testing. In the subpopulation of patients with stage III disease predictive performance was good (area under the curve 0.92 within 30 days of diagnosing recurrent disease). In this group of patients, 86% of cases that were detected by CEA were also detected by TPA.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, TPA is a relatively poor predictor for recurrent disease during follow-up. When looking at the specific subpopulation of patients with stage III disease predictive performance of TPA was good. However, TPA testing was not found to be superior to CEA testing in this specific subpopulation.

Study of the Annexin A1 and Its Associations with Carcinoembryonic Antigen and Mismatch Repair Proteins in Colorectal Cancer

PURPOSE

Annexin-A1 (ANXA1) has been implicated in various tumor types, but few studies have investigated its involvement in colorectal cancer. The study aimed to analyze ANXA1 expression in the normal margin and colorectal tumor tissues of 104 patients who underwent surgery for colorectal cancer and to associate the ANXA1 expression with predictive clinicopathological variables.

METHODS

Hematoxylin-eosin and immunohistochemical staining were used for the analysis.

RESULTS

ANXA1 expression was higher in colorectal cancer than in normal margin tissue (p = 0.0001). However, no differences were observed when we analyzed the ANXA1 expression in colon and rectal tumors (p = 0.830). Also, this protein positivity was associated with increased carcinoembryonic antigen levels (p = 0.004). Our data in the DNA-mismatch repair proteins expression was in accordance to the literature. And their positivity was not associated with ANXA1 presence in colorectal cancer.

CONCLUSION

The high incidence of ANXA1 positive expression in colorectal cancer and its association with carcinoembryonic antigen levels might indicate the importance of this protein in the colorectal cancer biology.

CEACAM6 as detected by the AP11 antibody is a marker notable for mucin-producing adenocarcinomas

A new monoclonal antibody recognizing CEACAM6, which we named AP11, was generated by immunizing BALB/c mice with phytohemagglutinin-activated human peripheral blood mononuclear cells. This study aims to evaluate whether CEACAM6 can serve as a tumor marker using AP11. We examined the expression of CEACAM6 with AP11 in 11 human carcinoma cell lines by flow cytometry and 439 human tissues including 282 tumor tissues and 157 normal tissues by immunohistochemistry. CEACAM6 epitope recognized by AP11 was well preserved in formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded tissues. Adenocarcinomas of the stomach (86 %), colorectum (95 %), pancreas (100 %), and lung (83 %), urinary bladder (100 %), and mucinous ovarian tumors (88 %) had a high rate of CEACAM6 immunoreactivity. We observed a variable expression of CEACAM6 in hepatocellular carcinomas (35 %), squamous cell carcinomas of the lung (60 %), renal cell carcinomas (14 %), urothelial carcinomas (13 %), serous carcinomas of the ovary (17 %), and breast carcinomas (11 %). Small-cell carcinomas of the lung, prostatic adenocarcinomas, papillary thyroid carcinomas, malignant melanomas, giant cell tumors, and osteosarcomas were negative for CEACAM6. All normal tissues of various organs were negative for CEACAM6. In conclusion, CEACAM6 as detected by AP11, may serve as a marker for mucin-producing adenocarcinomas of the gastrointestinal tract and ovary as well as non-small cell lung cancer. Thus, AP11 represents a valuable diagnostic tool for detecting CEACMA6-positive cancers.

Overexpression and clinical significance of carcinoembryonic antigen-related cell adhesion molecule 6 in colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Carcinoembryonic antigen-related cell adhesion molecule 6 (CEACAM6) inhibits anoikis and affects the malignant phenotype of cancer cells. In this study, we analyzed CEACAM6 as a gene that is highly upregulated in colon cancer tissues, and examined the assertion that CEACAM6 might be a suitable candidate tumor marker for the diagnosis of colon cancer.

METHODS

CEACAM6 gene expression in human colon tissues was performed by tissue microarray and analyzed using RT-PCR (each of normal and tumor tissue, n=40) and immunohistochemical and clinicopathological (colon cancer patients, n=143) analyses.

RESULTS

CEACAM6 transcriptional and translational levels were significantly upregulated in human tumor tissues compared to non-tumor regions, and clinicopathological analysis revealed a significant correlation between CEACAM6 protein expression and Dukes' stage (p<0.001). High expression levels of CEACAM6 were significantly associated with lower overall survival (p<0.001) and shorter recurrence-free survival (p<0.001). We demonstrated that knockdown of CEACAM6 with CEACAM6-specific small interfering RNA in colorectal cancer cells attenuated invasivity (35%); conversely, the overexpression of CEACAM6 increased invasiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

CEACAM6 is significantly upregulated in colon cancer tissues and is closely associated with poor prognosis, indicating that CEACAM6 might be used as a tumor biomarker and a potential therapeutic target for colon cancer.

Cell surface markers in colorectal cancer prognosis

The classification of colorectal cancers (CRC) is currently based largely on histologically determined tumour characteristics, such as differentiation status and tumour stage, i.e., depth of tumour invasion, involvement of regional lymph nodes and the occurrence of metastatic spread to other organs. These are the conventional prognostic factors for patient survival and often determine the requirement for adjuvant therapy after surgical resection of the primary tumour. However, patients with the same CRC stage can have very different disease-related outcomes. For some, surgical removal of early-stage tumours leads to full recovery, while for others, disease recurrence and metastasis may occur regardless of adjuvant therapy. It is therefore important to understand the molecular processes that lead to disease progression and metastasis and to find more reliable prognostic markers and novel targets for therapy. This review focuses on cell surface proteins that correlate with tumour progression, metastasis and patient outcome, and discusses some of the challenges in finding prognostic protein markers in CRC.

Prognostic value of carcinoembryonic antigen distribution in tumor tissue of colorectal carcinoma

CONTEXT: Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) can be detected in colorectal tumor tissue but its role in the survival of patients remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the expression of tissue CEA using immunohistochemical staining in colorectal tumors and to analyze the relationship between this finding and preoperative plasmatic level of CEA, morphologic features and survival of patients operated with curative intent for colorectal carcinoma. METHOD: Forty-seven patients were included in the study: 18 (38.3%) males and 29 (61.7%) females, with a mean age of 67.8 ± 9.7 years (37 to 84 years). Immediately before laparotomy, pre-operative serum levels of CEA were obtained where normal levels were considered <2.5 ng/mL for non-smokers, and <5.0 ng/mL for smokers. CEA immunohistochemical studies were carried out using anti-human CEA monoclonal mouse antibody. The expression of immunostaining for each neoplasia was classified according to the pattern of CEA tissular distribution into apical or cytoplasmic. The variables considered for the statistical analysis were plasmatic preoperative CEA level, location of the lesion within the large intestine, lesion diameter, lymph node involvement, Duke's classification, vein invasion, grade of cellular differentiation, survival and pattern of CEA tissular distribution. The statistical models utilized were Spearman's correlation and the Mann-Whitney, Kruskal-Wallis and Student t tests. Patients' survival was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: The mean preoperative CEA value was 15.4 ± 5.5 ng/mL (0.2 to 92.1 ng/mL). The neoplasm was located in the colon in 29 (61.7%) and in the rectum in 18 (38.3%) patients. Eight (17.0%) patients were classified as Duke's stage A, 22 (46.8%) as stage B and 17 (36.2%) as stage C. On immunohistochemical studies, the pattern of CEA tissular distribution was apical in 33 (70.2%) patients and cytoplasmic in 14 (29.8%) patients. Patients with apical patterns presented a mean sera CEA level of 15.5 ± 6.5 ng/mL while those with cytoplasmic pattern attained a mean sera CEA level of 15.1 ± 7.3 ng/mL, with no significant difference between these values (P = 0.35). Apical distribution of CEA occurred in 6 (12.8%) Duke A, 18 (38.2%) Duke B and 9 (12.2%) Duke C patients, while cytoplasmic CEA tissular distribution was observed in 2 (4.2%) Duke A, 3 (6.4%) Duke B and 9 (19.1%) Duke C patients. Patients with Duke B neoplasms presented significantly more apical CEA tissular distribution patterns (P = 0.049) than subjects with cytoplasmic CEA tissular patterns. The apical CEA tissular distribution pattern in neoplasms was significantly more frequent in neoplasms with no lymph node compromise compared to the cytoplasmic pattern (P = 0.50). However, no significant differences were seen between apical and cytoplasmic CEA tissular distribution patterns in terms of colon or rectal site (P = 0.21), lesion diameter across greatest axis (P = 0.19), vein invasion (P = 0.13) or degree of cellular differentiation (P = 0.19). Of the 47 patients operated, 33 (70.2%) survived for more than 5 years where mean survival was 31.1 ± 5.6 months. Survival between patients with apical and cytoplasmic CEA tissular distribution showed no significant difference (P = 0.38). CONCLUSIONS: Although the apical distribution pattern of CEA was significantly more frequent in more advanced stages of Duke's classification, the CEA tissular distribution presented no relationship with serum CEA levels, morphological features of the neoplasm or survival of patients undergoing curative colorectal carcinoma resection.

Expression of CEACAM6 in resectable colorectal cancer: a factor of independent prognostic significance

PURPOSE

CEACAM6, CEACAM1, and human carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) are coexpressed in normal colorectal epithelia, but show deregulated expression in colorectal cancers (CRC). Upregulation of CEACAM6 expression in hyperplastic polyps and early adenomas represents one of the earliest observable molecular events leading to colorectal tumors. The aim of our study was to evaluate the prognostic relevance of CEACAM6, CEACAM1, and CEA tissue expression in patients with CRC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Immunohistochemical analysis was carried out on tissue microarrays from 243 paraffin-embedded biopsies from a randomized controlled clinical trial (Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research [SAKK] 40/81) of adjuvant fluorouracil-based chemotherapy with CEACAM-specific monoclonal antibodies. The median follow-up was 8 years. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates and hazard ratios (HRs) estimated using Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

Tissue expression of CEACAM6, CEACAM1, and CEA was enhanced in 55%, 58%, and 94% of patients, respectively. Multivariate Cox analysis including sex, age, tumor site, stage, differentiation grade, treatment, and nodal status as covariates showed that CEACAM6 overexpression independently predicted poor OS (HR, 1.86; P =.0100) and DFS (HR, 2.00; P =.0028), whereas CEACAM1 or CEA were not significantly related to these outcomes. The data did not provide evidence for or against the hypothesis that the CEACAM6 effect on survival differs according to treatment.

CONCLUSION

Expression of the cell adhesion molecule CEACAM6 in CRC is an independent prognostic factor allowing subdivision of patients into low- and high-risk groups. Whether CEACAM6 or CEA and CEACAM1 might be useful as predictive markers of chemotherapy benefit remains unclear.