The correlation of tumor markers, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio and FDG PET/CT measures in pancreatic cancer

Year 2021, Volume: 3 Issue: 3, 95 - 101, 29.07.2021

Merve Hafızoğlu , Reyhan Koroglu , Hacer Demir , Erhan Bozkurt , Emre Hafızoğlu

https://doi.org/10.46310/tjim.839545

Abstract

Objective:This review will outline the correlation of tumor markers and NLR (Neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio) with measures such as MTV (mean total volume), TLG (total lesion glycolysis), and SUV (standart uptake value) in 18F FDG PET/CT in pancreatic carcinoma with the goal of selection of appropriate treatment modality and decrease rates of treatment failure and recurrences in pancreatic carcinoma by using tumor markers. In this way, we can predict the results of imaging modalities, using easy lab technics such as NLR and tm markers.
Methods:45 patients that new diagnosed pancreatic cancer were included in the study. Diagnosis were confirmed by cytology. Their tumor marker levels (CA 19.9, CEA and AFP), NLR and PET/CT measurements (SUVmax, SUVmean, TLG, MTV) were obtained. Patients that already diagnosed, followed up or treated by oncology department, were excluded.
Results:When tumor markers were compared with PET/CT measurements (SUVmax, SUVmean, TLG, MTV and tumor size) there were no significant difference between them. Also, total uptake values of organs (liver, spleen, pancreas) were not related with tm marker levels. However, there were positive significant correlation between tumor size and SUVmax, SUVmean, TLG (p=0.02 r = 0.347, p=0.022 r = 0.340, p=0.008 r =0.392).
Conclusions:Tumor markers may help diagnosing or managing of pancreatic malignities, but we cannot predict PET/CT results according to tumor marker levels. So, tumor markers must be used as an adjunctive method for diagnosing malignities. They cannot be major determiner for malignities. Diagnosing and following up malignities should be supported by other laboratory technics and imaging methods.

Keywords

CA 19.9,, CEA, AFP, SUVMAX, MTV, TLG

References

• 1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 2015 Jan-Feb;65(1):5-29. doi: 10.3322/caac.21254
• 2. Karaman M. Pankreatik kanserde susturulan CA9 ve TSPAN8 genlerinin etkilerinin in vitro ve in vivo olarak araştırılması. Doktora Tezi. Balıkesir: Balıkesir Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Biyoloji Anabilim Dalı, 2018.
• 3. Steinberg W. The clinical utility of the CA 19-9 tumor-associated antigen. Am J Gastroenterol 1990 Apr;85(4):350-5.
• 4. Goonetilleke KS, Siriwardena AK. Systematic review of carbohydrate antigen (CA 19-9) as a biochemical marker in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2007 Apr;33(3):266-70. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2006.10.004.
• 5. Boone BA, Steve J, Zenati MS, Hogg ME, Singhi AD, Barlett DL, Zureikat AH, Bahary N, Zeh HJ. Serum CA 19-9 response to neoadjuvant therapy is associated with outcome in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 2014 Dec;21:4351-8. doi: 10.1245/10434-014-3842-z.
• 6. Ito S, Gejyo F. Elevation of serum CA19-9 levels in benign diseases. Intern Med 1999 Nov;38(11):840-1. doi: 10.2169/internalmedicine.38.840.
• 7. Tempero MA, Uchida E, Takasaki H, Burnett AD, Steplewski Z, Pour PM. Relationship of carbohydrate antigen 19-9 and Lewis antigens in pancreatic cancer. Cancer Res 1987 Oct;15;47(20):5501-3.
• 8. Gold P, Freedman SO. Specific carcinoembryonic antigen of human digestive system. J Exp Med 1965 Sep;1;122(3):467-81.
• 9. Blumenthal RD, Hansen HJ, Goldenberg DM. Inhibition of adhesion, invasion, and metastasis by antibodies targeting CEACAM6 (NCA-90) and CEACAM5 (carcinoembryonic antigen). Cancer Res 2005 Oct 1;65(19):8809-17.doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-0420.
• 10. Hostetter RB, Augustus LB, Mankarious R, Chi K, Fan D, Toth C, Thomas P, Jessup JM. Carcinoembryonic antigen as a selective enhancer of colorectal cancer metastasis. J Natl Cancer Inst 1990 Mar 7;82(5):380-5.
• 11. Benchimol S, Fuks A, Jothy S, Beauchemin N, Shirota K,Stanners CP. Carcinoembryonic antigen, a human tumor marker, functions as an intercellular adhesion molecule. Cell 1989 Apr 21;57(2):327-34. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(89)90970-7.
• 12. Pignatelli M, Durbin H, Bodmer WF. Carcinoembryonic antigen functions as an accessory adhesion molecule mediating colon epithelial cell-collagen interactions. Proc Natl Acad Sci 1990 Feb;87(4):1541-5. doi: 10.1073/pnas.87.4.1541.
• 13. Medoff JR, Jegasothy BV, Roche JK. Carcinoembryonic antigen-induced release of a suppressor factor from normal human lymphocytes in vitro. Cancer Res 1984 Dec; 44(12):5822-7.
• 14. Koness RJ. CEA: is it of value in colorectal cancer. R I Med 1995 Jun;78(6):164- 6.
• 15. Tsavaris N, Vonorta K, Tsoutsos H, Kozatsani-Halividi D, Mylonakis N, Papagrigorion D. Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), alpha-fetoprotein, CA 19-9 and CA 125 in advanced colorectal cancer (ACC). Int J Biol Markers 1993;8(2):88–93.
• 16. Chevinsky AH. CEA in tumors of other than colorectal origin. Semin Surg Oncol 1991;7(3):162–6. doi: 10.1002/ssu.2980070309.
• 17. Gold P, Freedman SO. Demonstration of tumor-specific antigens in human colonic carcinomata by immunological tolerance and absorption techniques. J Exp Med 1965 Mar;121(3): 439-62. doi: 10.1084/jem.121.3.439.
• 18. Garcia M, Seigner C, Bastid C, Choux R, Payan MJ, Reggio H. Carcinoembryonic antigen has a different molecular weight in normal colon and in cancer cells due to N-glycosylation differences. Cancer Res 1991;51:5679-86.
• 19. Vastag B. Testicular cancer seen as ‘stalking horse’ for other cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999 Nov;91(21):1801-3.
• 20. Bei R, Mizejewski GJ. Alpha fetoprotein is more than a hepatocellular cancer biomarker: From spontaneous immune response in cancer patients to the development of an AFP based cancer vaccine. Curr Mol Med 2011 Oct;11(7):564 81.
• 21. Sturgeon CM, Duffy MJ,Hofmann BR, Lamerz R, Fritsche HA, Gaarenstroom K. National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry: National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines for use of tumor markers in liver, bladder, cervical, and gastric cancers. Clin Chem 2010;56:1-48.
• 22. Reske SN, Grillenberger KG, Glatting G, Port M, Hildebrandt M, Gansauge F, H G Beger HG. Overexpression of glucose transporter 1 and increased FDG uptake in pancreatic carcinoma. J Nucl Med 1997 Sep;38(9):1344-8.
• 23. Diederichs CG, Staib L, Vogel J. Values and limitations of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron-emission tomography with preoperative evaluation of patients with pancreatic masses. Pancreas 2000;20:109-16.
• 24. Holgersson G, Ekman S, Reizenstein J, Bergqvist M, Pontén F, Uhlén M. Molecular profiling using tissue microarrays as a tool to identify predictive biomarkers in laryngeal cancer treated with radiotherapy. Cancer Genomics Proteomics 2010;7:1‑7.
• 25. Schwartz DL, Harris J, Yao M, Rosenthal DI, Opanowski A, Levering A. Metabolic tumor volume as a prognostic imaging‑based biomarker for head‑and‑neck cancer: Pilot results from Radiation Therapy Oncology Group protocol 0522. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2015 Mar 15;91(4):721‑9.
• 26. Dibble EH, Alvarez AC, Truong MT, Mercier G, Cook EF, Subramaniam RM. 18F‑FDG metabolic tumor volume and total glycolytic activity of oral cavity and oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer: Adding value to clinical staging. J Nucl Med 2012;53:709‑15. Doi: 10.2967/jnumed.111.099531.
• 27. Moon SH, Choi JY, Lee HJ, Son YI, Baek CH, Ahn YC. Prognostic value of 18F‑FDG PET/CT in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the tonsil: Comparisons of volume‑based metabolic parameters. Head Neck 2013 Jan;35(1):15‑22. doi: 10.1002/hed.22904.
• 28. Shiozawa S, Tsuchiya A, Kim DH, Ogawa K. Prognostic significance of CA19 9 levels in patients with pancreatic cancer. Nihon Rinsho 2006 Jan;64:297 300.
• 29. Marrelli D, Caruso S, Pedrazzani C, Neri A, Fernandes E, Marini M, Pinto E, Roviello F. CA19-9 serum levels in obstructive jaundice: clinical value in benign and malignant conditions. Am J Surg 2009 Sep;198(3): 333-339. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2008.12.031.
• 30. Ballehaninna UK, Chamberlain RS. The clinical utility of serum CA 19-9 in the diagnosis, prognosis and management of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: An evidence based appraisal. J Gastrointest Oncol 2012 Jun;3(2): 105-19. doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2078-6891.2011.021.
• 31. Zhang Q, Zeng L, Chen Y, Lian G, Qian C, Chen S, Li J, Huang K. Pancreatic Cancer Epidemiology, Detection, and Management. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2016;2016:8962321. doi: 10.1155/2016/8962321.
• 32. Futakawa N, Kimura W, Yamagata S, Zhao B, Ilsoo H, Inoue T, Sata N, Kawaguchi Y, Kubota Y, Muto T. Significance of K-ras mutation and CEA level in pancreatic juice in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2000;7(1):63-71. doi: 10.1007/s005340050156.
• 33. Basso D, Fabris C, Del Favero G, Angonese C, Meggiato T, Infantino A, Plebani M, Piccoli A. Serum carcinoembryonic antigen in the differential diagnosis of pancreatic cancer: influence of tumour spread, liver impairment, and age. Dis Markers 1988;6(3):203-7.
• 34. Sharma C, Eltawil KM, Renfrew PD, Walsh MJ, Molinari M. Advances in diagnosis, treatment and palliation of pancreatic carcinoma: 1990-2010. World J Gastroenterol 2011 Feb;17(7):867-97.
• 35. Juntermanns B, Radunz S, Heuer M, Hertel S, Reis H, Neuhaus JP, Vernadakis S, Trarbach T, Paul A, Kaiser MG. Tumor markers as a diagnostic key for hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Eur J Med Res 2010 Aug;15(8):357-61.
• 36. Stieber P , Heinemann V, Schalhorn A. Tumor markers , how they should be applied. MMW Fortschr Med 2005 May;147(20):37-9.
• 37. Shalapour S, Karin M. Immunity, inflammation, and cancer: an eternal fight between good and evil. The Journal of Clinical Investigation 2015;125:3347-55.
• 38. McMillan D. C. Systemic inflammation, nutritional status and survival in patients with cancer. Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic Care 2009;12:223-6.
• 39. Mantovani A, Allavena P, Sica A, Balkwill F. Cancer-related inflammation. Nature 2008;454:436-44.
• 40. Yang Z, Gu JH, Guo CS. Preoperative neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio is a predictor of survival of epithelial ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Oncotarget 2017;8:46414–24.
• 41. Vartolomei MD, Kimura S, Ferro M. Is neutrophil-to-lymphocytes ratio a clinical relevant preoperative biomarker in upper tract urothelial carcinoma? A meta-analysis of 4385 patients. World J Urol 2018;36:1019–29.
• 42. Sun XD, Shi XJ, Chen YG. Elevated preoperative neutrophil lymphocyte ratio is associated with poor prognosis in hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with liver transplantation: a meta-analysis. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2016;2016:4743808.
• 43. Paramanathan A, Saxena A, Morris DL. A systematic review and metaanalysis on the impact of pre-operative neutrophil lymphocyte ratio on long term outcomes after curative intent resection of solid tumours. Surg Oncol 2014;23:31-9.
• 44. Li H, Song J, Cao M, Wang G, Li L, Zhang B, Li, Y, Xu W, Zheng J. Preoperative neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio is a more valuable prognostic factor than platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio for nonmetastatic rectal cancer. Int Immunopharmacol 2016 Nov;40:327–31.
• 45. Ishizuka M, Nagata H, Takagi K, Iwasaki Y, Shibuya N, Kubota K. Clinical significance of the C-reactive protein to albumin ratio for survival after surgery for colorectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2016;23(3):900-7.
• 46. Fujii T, Yanai K, Tokuda S, Nakazawa Y, Kurozumi S, Obayashi S, Yajima R, Hiraka T, Shirabe K. Relationship Between FDG Uptake and Neutrophil/Lymphocyte Ratio in Patients with Invasive Ductal Breast Cancer. Anticancer Res 2018 Aug;38(8):4927-31. doi: 10.21873/anticanres.12809
• 47. Sun Y, Duan Q, Wang S, Zeng Y, Wu R. Diagnosis of pancreatic cancer using ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT and CA19-9 with SUVmax association to clinical characteristics. J Buon 2015 Mar;20(2):452-9.