Clinical Chemistry Siemens Point of Care - Urinalysis
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Clinical Chemistry 47: 948-950, 2001;
This Article
Right arrow Extract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sölétormos, G.
Right arrow Articles by Bach, F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sölétormos, G.
Right arrow Articles by Bach, F.
Related Collections
Right arrow Proteomics and Protein Markers
(Clinical Chemistry. 2001;47:948-950.)
© 2001 American Association for Clinical Chemistry, Inc.


Technical Briefs

Cerebrospinal Fluid Cytokeratins for Diagnosis of Patients with Central Nervous System Metastases from Breast Cancer

György Sölétormos1a and Flemming Bach2

1 Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Hillerød Hospital, Helsevej 2, DK-3400 Hillerød, Denmark

2 Department of Oncology, Ålborg Hospital, DK-9000 Ålborg, Denmark

aauthor for correspondence: fax 45-48-24-00-67; e-mail geso{at}fa.dk

In cases of breast cancer, the diagnoses of parenchymal brain metastases and leptomeningeal carcinomatosis are often delayed (1). New inexpensive biochemical diagnostic initiatives have suggested measurement of cytokeratin tumor markers in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) (2)(3). Each type of epithelial cell can be characterized by its cytokeratin polypeptide content because the expression pattern varies with the type of epithelium (4)(5)(6). Malignant epithelial tumors and their metastases maintain the cytokeratin expression typical for the tissue of origin (4)(7)(8). Cytokeratins 8, 18, and 19 are abundantly expressed in adenocarcinoma of the breast, only weakly expressed in epithelial cells of the choroid plexus, and not expressed in nerve, glial, ependymal, and meningeal cells (9). Because neither healthy nor malignant epithelial cells are known to secrete cytokeratins, how they appear in the CSF remains unexplained. Some authors have suggested that cytokeratins are released from the large fraction of dead and dying cells in growing tumors (5), whereas others have suggested that cytokeratins are markers of cell proliferation released during mitosis (10). In either case, release may indicate cell turnover in central nervous system (CNS) metastases from adenocarcinoma. Previous reports have addressed the diagnostic performance of the tissue polypeptide antigen (TPA) assay system in the CSF (2). The system uses polyclonal antibodies, and data indicate that they recognize the rod domain of the cytokeratin 8, 18, and 19 fragments; however, the exact structure of the binding epitope is unknown. Recently, another cytokeratin-based assay system that measures tissue polypeptide-specific antigen (TPS) has become commercially available. The TPS assay is a monoclonal test specific to the M3-binding region on cytokeratin 18. The clinical relevance of using assay systems based on monoclonal antibodies compared with the polyclonal TPA assay is undetermined. We therefore compared the diagnostic accuracy of the monoclonal TPS and the polyclonal TPA tests in terms of identifying and excluding CNS metastases among breast cancer patients, following recent guidelines for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy of medical tests (11).

A prospective cohort of consecutive ambulatory or hospitalized breast cancer patients suspected of increasing intracranial pressure (headache, dizziness, and disturbances of vision and the coordination of extremities) were allocated to the tumor marker study. The cytokeratin analyses were performed without knowledge of the clinical conclusions, and the physicians attending the patients had no knowledge of the cytokeratin data. Informed consent for enrollment was obtained from all patients. The study complied with the Helsinki II Declaration and was approved by the Scientific Ethics Committee of Copenhagen County. If possible, an autopsy included a postmortem examination of the brain. The cerebrum was cut into 0.5- to 1-cm thick frontal slices. The cerebellum, brainstem, and pituitary gland were cut into horizontal sections. Macroscopically suspicious areas were examined histologically. On the basis of data from computer tomography (CT) scans, CSF cytology, and autopsy findings, the patients were divided into the following three groups: (a) patients with parenchymal brain metastases (i.e., a positive CT scan or a positive autopsy <6 months after a negative CT scan); (b) patients with leptomeningeal carcinomatosis (i.e., a positive CSF cytology or an autopsy with leptomeningeal carcinomatosis <6 months after a negative CSF cytology); and (c) patients without CNS metastases (i.e., a negative CT scan and CSF cytology and the absence of CNS metastases within the following 6 months). Patients with both parenchymal and meningeal metastases were allocated to the group with leptomeningeal carcinomatosis. Both the TPS and the TPA tests were performed on RIA systems purchased from Beki Diagnostics AB and Byk-Sangtec. To investigate the reproducibility of the evaluated tests, we included control samples in each assay. The collected CSF samples were stored at -80 °C until assayed in duplicate. The analytical imprecision was 8.6% at 77 units/L for TPS and 9.4% at 71 units/L for TPA.

The diagnostic accuracy of TPS and TPA was investigated for any CNS metastases, parenchymal brain metastases, and for leptomeningeal carcinomatosis. For classification of patients, we implemented the terminology described by Altman (12). The categorical variables true-positive (TP) marker test results, false-negative marker test results, false-positive (FP) marker test results, and true-negative marker test results were compared with Fisher’s test. Variables were statistically comparable between the single markers of TPA and TPS but were not statistically comparable between a single marker and the combination of TPA and TPS. A P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. The confidence intervals for frequencies were calculated according to Wulff and Schlichting (13). The terminology of Zweig and Robertson (14) was used for calculating the ROC curves.

All 70 enrolled patients were eligible for the study, and no subjects were excluded. ROC curves of the correlated TP and FP rates for a series of cutoff points for each marker are provided in Fig. 1 . We considered 65 and 95 units/L as tentative optimal cutoff values for TPS and TPA, respectively. When we used these values, the TP rates were 85% (TPS) and 74% (TPA), and the FP rate was 0% for both markers (Table 1 ).



View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 1. ROC curves of cytokeratins in CSF.

The ROC curves demonstrate the capacity of TPS and TPA to discriminate between the presence and absence of any CNS metastases (parenchymal brain metastases and/or leptomeningeal carcinomatosis) among patients with breast cancer. {blacktriangleup}, TPS; {circ}, TPA. TP rates of 85% (TPS) and 74% (TPA) and a corresponding FP rate of 0% were obtained at cutoff concentrations of 65 and 95 units/L, respectively.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 1. Diagnostic accuracy1 of cytokeratin measurements in CSF obtained from breast cancer patients suspected of CNS metastases.

TPS was determined in CSF samples from 60 patients, TPA was determined in CSF samples from 59 patients, and both TPS and TPA were determined in CSF samples from 49 patients. With regard to the number of patients without metastases (FP plus true-negative marker test results), the numbers of individuals shown for specificity vary among the three columns in Table 1Up , not because of different cutoff values but because of the procedure used to calculate data for specificity. When investigating the accuracy of the markers to identify and exclude any CNS metastases, we classified increased marker concentrations associated with parenchymal brain metastases, as well as with leptomeningeal carcinomatosis as TP test results. When investigating the accuracy of the markers to identify and exclude parenchymal brain metastases, we classified increased marker concentrations associated with leptomeningeal carcinomatosis as FP test results. When investigating the accuracy of the markers to identify and exclude leptomeningeal carcinomatosis, we classified increased marker concentrations associated with parenchymal brain metastases as FP results. Neither TPS nor TPA was able to discriminate breast cancer metastases involving the meninges from those confined to the brain parenchyma (Table 1Up ). With regard to any CNS metastases, TPS and TPA supplied similar diagnostic information (P >0.1, Fisher’s test), and each marker identified ~80% of patients with CNS metastases.

We found that there was no diagnostic gain when we combined TPS and TPA because none of the patients had increased concentrations of TPS when they had TPA concentrations within reference values, or vice versa; therefore, only one of these markers should be measured. Given the high positive predictive value, the confidence intervals, and the low costs of a cytokeratin test, our data support the view that cytokeratin measurements may be of use as part of a diagnostic protocol for patients suspected of CNS metastases. Thus, breast cancer patients with increased cytokeratin concentrations associated with healthy CNS scan results and the absence of tumor cells in the CSF may have to be evaluated in terms of initiating or continuing further systemic treatment to avoid unnecessary toxicity associated with an ineffective chemotherapy. On the basis of the presented results, we find the data sufficiently encouraging to further investigate the use of cytokeratins as part of a diagnostic strategy in patients suspected of CNS metastases from breast cancer.


References

  1. Harris JR, Morrow M, Norton L. Malignant tumors of the breast. DeVita VT Hellman S Rosenberg SA eds. Cancer principles and practice of oncology, 5th ed 1997:1557-1616 Lippincott Philadelphia. .
  2. Bach F, Bjerregaard B, Sölétormos G, Bach FW, Horn T. Diagnostic value of cerebrospinal fluid cytology in comparison with tumor marker activity in detecting CNS metastases from breast cancer. Cancer 1993;72:2376-2382.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  3. Sölétormos G, Bach F. TPS concentrations in cerebrospinal fluid among patients with central nervous system metastases from breast cancer. Clin Chem Lab Med 2001;in press..
  4. Moll R, Franke WW, Schiller DL, Geiger B, Krepler R. The catalog of human cytokeratins: patterns of expression in normal epithelia, tumors and cultured cells. Cell 1982;31:11-24.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  5. Sundström B. Human cytokeratins: their use as targets in cancer management 1990:1-65 Printing office of Umeå University Umeå University medical dissertations. Umeå, Sweden. .
  6. Moll R. Cytokeratins as markers of differentiation in the diagnosis of epithelial tumors. Subcell Biochem 1998;31:205-261.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  7. Moll R. Epithelial tumor markers: cytokeratins and tissue polypeptide antigen (TPA). Curr Top Pathol 1987;77:71-101.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  8. Sundström BE, Stigbrand TI. Cytokeratins and tissue polypeptide antigen. Int J Biol Markers 1994;9:102-108.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  9. Nathrath WBJ, Heidenkummer P, Björklund V, Björklund B. Distribution of tissue polypeptide antigen (TPA) in normal human tissues. J Histochem Cytochem 1985;33:99-109.[Abstract]
  10. Björklund B, Björklund V. Specificity and basis of the tissue polypeptide antigen. Cancer Detect Prev 1983;6:41-51.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  11. Bruns DE, Huth EJ, Magid E, Young DS. Toward a checklist for reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy of medical tests. Clin Chem 2000;46:893-895.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Altman D. Practical statistics for medical research, 1st ed 1991:410-417 Chapman & Hall Boca Raton, FL. .
  13. Wulff HR, Schlichting P. MEDSTAT Statistical program, Ver. 2.1. Copenhagen: Astra Group, 1988:1–3..
  14. Zweig MH, Robertson EA. Why we need better test evaluations. Clin Chem 1982;28:1272-1276.[Abstract/Free Full Text]




This Article
Right arrow Extract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sölétormos, G.
Right arrow Articles by Bach, F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sölétormos, G.
Right arrow Articles by Bach, F.
Related Collections
Right arrow Proteomics and Protein Markers


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS