4.4 Article

Quantification of Circulating Free DNA as a Diagnostic Marker in Gall Bladder Cancer

Journal

PATHOLOGY & ONCOLOGY RESEARCH
Volume 23, Issue 1, Pages 91-97

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12253-016-0087-0

Keywords

Circulating free DNA; Gall bladder cancer; Real time PCR (qPCR); DNA quantification

Funding

  1. Department of Science and Technology (DST), New Delhi, India for INSPIRE Research Fellowship [IF120759]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Gall bladder Carcinoma (GBC) is the fifth most common cancer of the digestive tract and frequently diagnosed in late stage of disease. Estimation of circulating free DNA (cfDNA) in serum has been applied as a liquid biopsy in several deep seated malignancies. Its value in diagnosis of gall bladder carcinoma has not been studied. The present study was designed to assess the role of cfDNA in the diagnosis of GBC and correlate levels with the TNM stage. Serum was collected from 34 patients with GBC and 39 age and sex matched controls including 22 cholecystitis and 17 healthy individuals. Serum cfDNA levels were measured through quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) by amplification of beta-globin gene. Performance of the assay was calculated through the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. The cfDNA level was significantly lower in healthy controls and cholecystitis (89.32 +/- 59.76 ng/ml, 174.21 +/- 99.93 ng/ml) compared to GBC (1245.91 +/- 892.46 ng/ml, p = < 0.001). The cfDNA level was significantly associated with TNM stage, lymph node involvement and jaundice (0.002, 0.027, and 0.041, respectively). Area under curve of ROC analysis for cancer group versus healthy and cholecystitis group was 1.00 and 0.983 with sensitivity of 100 %, 88.24 % and specificity of 100 % respectively. Quantitative analysis of cfDNA may distinguish cholecystitis and gall bladder carcinoma and may serve as new diagnostic, noninvasive marker adjunct to imaging for the diagnosis of GBC.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available