Soluble mesothelin-related protein in pleural effusion from patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma

Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and Bioinformatic Analysis of Biomarkers for Prognosis of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma

In previous studies, non-invasive diagnostic biomarkers showed great benefit in the early-stage diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). However, the accuracy of different biomarkers was controversial. In this study, meta-analysis and bioinformatics analysis were conducted to compare the accuracy of the following three biomarkers and explore the relationship between the gene expression levels and MPM. A systematic search of meta-analysis was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library to identify relevant studies from the inception to March 2021. QUADAS-2 for Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies was used to evaluate the quality of eligible studies. The meta-analysis was performed utilizing Stata 15.0 and Review Manager 5.4 software. The meta-analysis results showed that 31 studies that involved 8750 participants were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity (SPE) were 0.90 (95% CI: 0.74, 0.97) and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.84, 0.95) for Fibulin-3, 0.66 (95% CI, 0.51–0.78) and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.82–0.96) for mesothelin (MSLN), 0.68 (95% CI: 0.63,0.73) and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.82,0.90) for soluble mesothelin-related peptides (SMRP), and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.66-0.80) and 0.89 (95% CI, 0.85–0.91) for MSLN + SMRP + Fibulin-3. Compared with the other two biomarkers, Fibulin-3 may be more appropriate to be one of the indicators for combined diagnosis. Bioinformatics analysis showed that the low expression level of the MSLN gene was significantly related to longer survival time and better prognosis of MPM patients. However, considering the limitation in the quality and sample size of the included research, further studies are required.

Clinical utility of diagnostic biomarkers in malignant pleural mesothelioma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is characterised by late-stage diagnosis and poor prognosis. Currently, no screening tool is advocated and diagnosis is based on invasive techniques, which are not well tolerated. Non-invasive diagnostic biomarkers have shown potential and could have a huge clinical benefit. However, despite extensive research, there is no consensus yet on their clinical use, with many articles reporting contradicting results, limiting their clinical implementation. The aim of this systematic review is therefore to explore the different semi- and non-invasive diagnostic markers in several human matrices and identify those that might clinically be relevant. A total of 100 articles were selected through Web of Science and PubMed, with 56 articles included in the quantitative analysis. Although many studies have reported on the diagnostic accuracy of MPM biomarkers such as serum mesothelin and high-mobility group box protein 1 and plasma fibulin-3, none have resulted in a validated test for early detection. Future research should focus on external validation, combinations into biomarker panels, the inclusion of early stage MPM patients and a combination of different biomarker matrices, as well as new markers.

Diagnostic biomarkers for malignant pleural mesothelioma seem promising; however, further research is necessary to prove their clinical value. This review provides a thorough overview of the different markers and compares them in several matrices.https://bit.ly/35ni6UO

Significance of secretory leukocyte peptidase inhibitor in pleural fluid for the diagnosis of benign asbestos pleural effusion

Secretory leukocyte peptidase inhibitor (SLPI) is a biomarker present in the respiratory tract that protects against tissue destruction and aids in wound healing. We examined whether SLPI in pleural effusion can be used to distinguish benign asbestos pleural effusion (BAPE) from early-stage malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) and other diseases. We measured the levels of SLPI, hyaluronic acid (HA), soluble mesothelin-related peptides (SMRP), CCL2, galectin-3, and CYFRA21-1 in 51 patients with BAPE, 37 patients with early-stage MPM, 77 patients with pleural effusions due to non-small-cell lung cancer (LCa), and 74 patients with other pleural effusions. SLPI levels in the pleural fluid of patients with BAPE were significantly lower than those in patients with MPM, LCa, and other pleural effusions (p < 0.0001). The area under the curve (AUC) for SLPI’s ability to distinguish BAPE from MPM was 0.902, with a sensitivity of 82.4% and a specificity of 86.5%. This AUC was not only favourable but was better than the AUC for the ability of CYFRA21-1 to distinguish BAPE (0.853). The combination of SLPI and CYFRA21-1 achieved an AUC of 0.965 for the differentiation between BAPE and MPM. Pleural fluid SLPI as well as CYFRA21-1 and HA is useful as a biomarker to diagnose BAPE, which needs to be distinguished from early-stage MPM.

Biomarkers for malignant pleural mesothelioma: a meta-analysis

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare but aggressive cancer, and early detection is associated with better survival. Mesothelin, fibulin-3 and osteopontin have been suggested as screening biomarkers. The study conducted a meta-analysis of the mean differences of mesothelin, osteopontin and fibulin-3 in blood and pleural samples. PubMed searches were conducted for studies that measured levels of mesothelin, osteopontin and fibulin-3 in participants with MPM compared with malignancy, benign lung disease or healthy participants. Thirty-two studies with mesothelin levels, 12 studies with osteopontin levels and 9 studies with fibulin-3 levels were included in the meta-analysis. Statistically significant mean differences were seen between MPM patients and all other comparison groups for mesothelin blood and pleural levels. Statistically significant differences in blood osteopontin levels were seen between participants with benign lung disease and healthy participants compared with participants with MPM, but not when comparing participants with cancer with MPM participants. There were not enough studies that reported osteopontin levels in pleural fluid to complete a meta-analysis. Statistically significant differences were seen in both blood and pleural levels of fibulin-3 in MPM patients compared with all other groups. On the basis of these results, mesothelin and fibulin-3 levels appear to be significantly lower in all control groups compared with those with MPM, making them good candidates for screening biomarkers. Osteopontin may be a useful biomarker for screening healthy individuals or those with benign lung disease but would not be useful for screening patients with malignancies.

Diagnostic value of soluble mesothelin-related peptides in pleural effusion for malignant pleural mesothelioma: An updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Soluble mesothelin-related peptide (SMRP) is a widely studied tumor marker for diagnosing malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). This study discussed the diagnostic value of SMRPs in pleural effusion (PE) for MPM.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane library system were systematically searched on the data of SMRPs in PE for MPM diagnosis. Pooled diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and symmetric receiver operating characteristic curve were calculated.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and a total of 3359 cases including 759 MPM cases, 1061 non-MM (malignant mesothelioma) malignant PE, and 1539 benign PE were brought into this meta-analysis. The pooled results of SMRPs in PE for diagnosing MPM were as follows: sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio were 0.68 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.64-0.72), 0.91 (95% CI: 0.86-0.94), 7.8 (95% CI: 5.0-12.0), 0.35 (95% CI: 0.31-0.40), and 22 (95% CI: 14-35), respectively. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.72-0.80). Subgroup analyzes revealed that the AUC of cohort group using histological diagnosis could be improved to 0.86 (95% CI: 0.83, 0.89). The Deek's funnel plot asymmetry test showed no publication bias.

CONCLUSION

Although the sensitivity of SMRPs was low, PE-SMRPs can be a good indicator of the existence of MPM.

Pleural effusion biomarkers and computed tomography findings in diagnosing malignant pleural mesothelioma: A retrospective study in a single center

In this study, we aimed to examine the clinical value of the pleural effusion (PE) biomarkers, soluble mesothelin-related peptide (SMRP), cytokeratin 19 fragment (CYFRA 21–1) and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and the utility of combining chest computed tomography (CT) findings with these biomarkers, in diagnosing malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). We conducted a retrospective cohort study in a single center. Consecutive patients with undiagnosed pleural effusions who underwent PE analysis between September 2014 and August 2016 were reviewed. This study included 240 patients (32 with MPM and 208 non-MPM). SMRP and the CYFRA 21-1/CEA ratio had a sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing MPM of 56.3% and 86.5%, and 87.5% and 74.0%, respectively. Using receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis of the ability of these markers to distinguish MPM from all other PE causes, the area under the ROC curve (AUC) for SMRP and the CYFRA 21-1/CEA ratio was 0.804 and 0.874, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of SMRP combined with the CYFRA 21-1/CEA ratio were 93.8% and 64.9%, respectively. The sensitivity of the combination of SMRP, the CYFRA 21-1/CEA ratio, and the presence of Leung’s criteria (a chest CT finding that is suggestive of malignant pleural disease) was 93.8%. In conclusion, the combined PE biomarkers had a high sensitivity for diagnosing MPM, although the addition of chest CT findings did not improve the sensitivity of SMRP combined with the CYFRA 21-1/CEA ratio. Combination of these biomarkers helped to rule out MPM effectively among patients at high risk of suffering MPM and would be valuable especially for old frail patients who have difficulty in undergoing invasive procedures such as thoracoscopy.

Clinical Investigation of Benign Asbestos Pleural Effusion

There is no detailed information about benign asbestos pleural effusion (BAPE). The aim of the study was to clarify the clinical features of BAPE. The criteria of enrolled patients were as follows: (1) history of asbestos exposure; (2) presence of pleural effusion determined by chest X-ray, CT, and thoracentesis; and (3) the absence of other causes of effusion. Clinical information was retrospectively analysed and the radiological images were reviewed. There were 110 BAPE patients between 1991 and 2012. All were males and the median age at diagnosis was 74 years. The median duration of asbestos exposure and period of latency for disease onset of BAPE were 31 and 48 years, respectively. Mean values of hyaluronic acid, adenosine deaminase, and carcinoembryonic antigen in the pleural fluid were 39,840 ng/mL, 23.9 IU/L, and 1.8 ng/mL, respectively. Pleural plaques were detected in 98 cases (89.1%). Asbestosis was present in 6 (5.5%) cases, rounded atelectasis was detected in 41 (37.3%) cases, and diffuse pleural thickening (DPT) was detected in 30 (27.3%) cases. One case developed lung cancer (LC) before and after BAPE. None of the cases developed malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) during the follow-up.

Clinical significance of soluble CD26 in malignant pleural mesothelioma

There is no established single diagnostic marker for malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). CD26 is a 110 kDa, multifunctional, membrane-bound glycoprotein that has dipeptidyl peptidase IV (DPPIV) enzyme activity. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical significance of soluble CD26 (sCD26) in patients with MPM. The study included 80 MPM patients, 79 subjects with past asbestos exposure (SPE), and 134 patients with other benign pleural diseases (OPD) that were included as a control group. sCD26 levels and DPPIV activity in serum and/or pleural fluid were determined using an ELISA kit. Serum sCD26 levels and DPPIV enzyme activity in patients with MPM were significantly decreased compared with those in the SPE group (P = 0.000). The level of serum sCD26 was significantly decreased in patients with advanced stages of MPM compared with those with earlier stages (P = 0.047). The median OS of patients with MPM who had higher DPPIV enzyme activity was significantly longer than that of those with lower DPPIV enzyme activity (P = 0.032). The sCD26 levels in the pleural fluid of MPM patients with an epithelioid subtype were significantly increased compared with the OPD cohort (P = 0.012). Moreover, DPPIV enzyme activity in the pleural fluid of patients with MPM with an epithelioid subtype were significantly increased compared with those in the OPD cohort (P = 0.009). Patients with MPM who had lower specific DPPIV activity, determined as DPPIV/sCD26, showed significantly prolonged survival compared with those with higher specific DPPIV activity (P = 0.028). Serum sCD26 and DPPIV enzyme activity appear to be useful biomarkers for differentiating patients with MPM from SPE. The sCD26 levels or DPPIV enzyme activity in pleural fluid appear to be biomarkers in patients with an epithelioid subtype of MPM. DPPIV activity in serum or pleural fluid appears to be predictive for the prognosis of patients with MPM.

Diagnostic values of soluble mesothelin-related peptides for malignant pleural mesothelioma: updated meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Although the values of soluble mesothelin-related peptides (SMRPs), including mesothelin and megakaryocyte potentiating factor, in serum and/or pleural fluid for diagnosing malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) have been extensively studied, the exact diagnostic accuracy of these SMRPs remains controversial. The purpose of the present meta-analysis is to update the overall diagnostic accuracy of SMRPs in serum and, furthermore, to establish diagnostic accuracy of SMRPs in pleural fluid for MPM.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

A total of 30 articles of diagnostic studies were included in the current meta-analysis. Sensitivity, specificity and other measures of accuracy of SMRPs in serum and pleural fluid for the diagnosis of MPM were pooled using random effects models. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves were used to summarise overall test performance.

RESULTS

The summary estimates of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio and diagnostic OR were 0.61, 0.87, 5.71, 0.43 and 14.43, respectively, for serum and 0.79, 0.85, 4.78, 0.30 and 19.50, respectively, for pleural fluid. It was also found that megakaryocyte potentiating factor in serum had a superior diagnostic accuracy compared with mesothelin for MPM.

CONCLUSIONS

SMRPs in both serum and pleural fluid are helpful markers for diagnosing MPM with similar diagnostic accuracy. The negative results of SMRP determinations are not sufficient to exclude non-MPM, and the positive test results indicate that further invasive diagnostic steps might be necessary for the diagnosis of MPM.

Diagnostic value of mesothelin in pleural fluids: comparison with CYFRA 21-1 and CEA

CYFRA 21-1 and CEA have been applied for the differential diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). The soluble mesothelin-related peptide (SMRP) has been proposed as a specific marker for distinguishing MPM from benign diseases and other malignancies in pleural effusions (PEs). In this study, we evaluated the usefulness of SMRP in PEs in the detection of mesotheliomas by comparing it with that of CYFRA 21-1, CEA, and with cytological examination. One hundred and seventy-seven consecutive patients (57 MPM, 64 metastatic tumors, and 56 benign diseases) were evaluated using commercial tests. The performance of the markers was analyzed by standard ROC analysis methods, using the area under a ROC curve (AUC) as a measure of accuracy. CYFRA 21-1 better differentiated malignant from benign effusions. The corresponding area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.87, while it was 0.74 for SMRP and 0.64 for CEA (p < 0.001). Conversely, SMRP differentiated MPM from all other PEs better than both CYFRA 21-1 and CEA (AUC = 0.84, 0.76, and 0.32, respectively, p = 0.003). Low levels of CEA were associated with a MPM diagnosis. The AUC for differentiating MPM from metastases was 0.81 for SMRP, 0.61 for CYFRA 21-1, and 0.20 for CEA (p < 0.001). In cases with negative or suspicious cytology, SMRP and CYFRA 21-1 identified 36/71 and 46/66 malignant PEs (29 and 31 MPM, respectively). Only 1 MPM showed a high CEA concentration. No single marker showed the best performance in any comparison. Results suggest that SMRP could improve CYFRA 21-1 and CEA accuracy in the differential diagnosis of MPM.

Hyaluronic acid in the pleural fluid of patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma

BACKGROUND

We retrospectively analyzed hyaluronic acid (HA) concentrations in pleural fluid and evaluated its utility for the differential diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM).

METHODS

Pleural fluid HA concentrations were measured in 334 patients, including 50, 48, 85, 18, 86, 6, and 41 patients with MPM, benign asbestos pleurisy (BAP), lung cancer (LC), other malignant conditions (OMCs), infectious pleuritis (IP), collagen disease (CD), and other conditions, respectively.

RESULTS

The median (range) HA concentrations in pleural fluid were 78,700 (7920-2,630,000)ng/ml in the MPM group, 35,950 (900-152,000)ng/ml in the BAP group, 19,500 (2270-120,000)ng/ml in the LC group, 14,200 (900-101,000)ng/ml in the OMC group, 23,000 (900-230,000)ng/ml in the IP group, 24,600 (9550-80,800)ng/ml in the CD group, and 8140 (900-67,800)ng/ml in the other diseases group. HA levels were significantly higher in the MPM group than in the other groups. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis revealed an area under the ROC curve value of 0.832 (95% confidence interval, 0.765-0.898) for the differential diagnosis of MPM. With a cutoff value of 100,000ng/ml, the sensitivity and specificity were 44.0 and 96.5%, respectively. In the MPM group, HA values were significantly higher for the epithelioid subtype than for the sarcomatous subtype (p=0.007), and higher in earlier stages (I and II) than in advanced stages (III and IV) (p=0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

A diagnosis of MPM should be strongly considered in patients with pleural fluid HA concentrations exceeding 100,000ng/ml.

Pleural fluid biomarkers: beyond the Light criteria

Although distinguishing transudates from exudates through the Light criteria is still considered a pragmatic first step in the diagnostic work-up of pleural effusions, the measurement of various pleural fluid biomarkers may aid in the identification of common and specific entities, such as heart failure (natriuretic peptides), tuberculosis (adenosine deaminase), malignancy (mesothelin, fibulin-3, immunocytochemical stains), or bacterial pleural infections (C-reactive protein). The use of these biomarkers is currently encouraged as a routine diagnostic procedure.

Aberrant DNA methylation profile in pleural fluid for differential diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) usually develops pleural fluid. We investigated the value of DNA methylation in the pleural fluid for differentiating MPM from lung cancer (LC). Pleural fluid was collected from 39 patients with MPM, 46 with LC, 25 with benign asbestos pleurisy (BAP) and 30 with other causes. The methylation of O(6)-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT), p16(INK4a) , ras association domain family 1A (RASSF1A), death-associated protein kinase (DAPK), and retinoic acid receptor β (RARβ) was examined using quantitative real-time PCR. DNA methylation of RASSF1A, p16(INK4a), RARβ, MGMT and DAPK was detected in 12 (30.8%), 3 (7.7%), 11 (28.2%), 0 (0.0%) and five patients (12.8%) with MPM, and in 22 (47.8%), 14 (30.4%), 24 (52.2%), 1 (2.2%) and six patients (13.0%) with LC, respectively. The mean methylation ratios of RASSF1A, p16(INK4a) and RARβ were 0.37 (range 0.0-2.84), 0.11 (0.0-2.67) and 0.44 (0.0-3.32) in MPM, and 0.87 (0.0-3.14), 1.16 (0.0-5.35) and 1.69 (0.0-6.49) in LC, respectively. The methylation ratios for the three genes were significantly higher in LC than in MPM (RASSF1A, P = 0.039; p16(INK4a), P = 0.005; and RARβ, P = 0.002). Patients with methylation in at least one gene were 3.51 (95% confidence interval, 1.09-11.34) times more likely to have LC. Hypermethylation seemed no greater with MPM than with BAP. Extended exposure to asbestos (≧30 years) was correlated with an increased methylation frequency (P = 0.020). Hypermethylation of tumor suppressor genes in pleural fluid DNA has the potential to be a valuable marker for differentiating MPM from LC.