PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptNIH Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
 
Cancer. Author manuscript; available in PMC Feb 1, 2014.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC3502643
NIHMSID: NIHMS393597
PAM4 Immunoassay Alone and in Combination with CA19-9 for the Detection of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma
David V. Gold, PhD,1 Jochen Gaedcke, MD,2 B. Michael Ghadimi, MD,2 Michael Goggins, MD,3 Ralph H. Hruban, MD,3 Mengling Liu, PhD,4 Guy Newsome, BS,1 and David M. Goldenberg, ScD, MD1
1Garden State Cancer Center, Center for Molecular Medicine and Immunology, Morris Plains, NJ
2University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany
3The Sol Goldman Pancreatic Cancer Research Center, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutes, Baltimore, MD
4Division of Biostatistics, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY
Corresponding author: David V. Gold, Ph.D., Garden State Cancer Center, CMMI, 300 The American Road, Morris Plains, NJ 07950; 973-844-7025; dvgold/at/gscancer.org
Background
Monoclonal antibody PAM4 has high specificity for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), as well as its precursor lesions, but is not reactive with normal and benign pancreatic tissues. Our purpose was to evaluate a PAM4-based serum-immunoassay alone, and in combination with the CA19-9 assay, for the detection of PDAC with particular attention to early-stage disease.
Methods
Sera from patients with confirmed PDAC (N=298), other cancers (N=99), benign disease of the pancreas (N=120), and healthy adults (N=79) were evaluated by specific enzyme-immunoassay for concentration of PAM4 and CA19-9 antigen levels by blinded analyses. All tests for statistical significance were two-sided.
Results
Overall sensitivity for PAM4 detection of PDAC was 76%, with 64% of stage-1 patients also identified. The detection rate was considerably higher (85%) for advanced disease. The assay showed high specificity compared to benign pancreatic disease (85%), with a positive likelihood ratio (+LR) of 4.93. CA19-9 provided an overall sensitivity of 77%, and was positive in 58% of patients with stage-1 disease; however, specificity was significantly lower for CA19-9 (68%) with a +LR=2.85 (P=0.026 compared to PAM4). Importantly, a combined PAM4/CA19-9 assay demonstrated an improved sensitivity (84%) for overall detection of PDAC without significant loss of specificity (82%), as compared to either arm alone.
Conclusions
The PAM4-immunoassay identified approximately two-thirds of stage-1 PDAC patients with high discriminatory power with respect to benign, non-neoplastic pancreatic disease. These results provide a rationale for testing patient groups considered at high-risk for PDAC with a combined PAM4/CA19-9 biomarker assay for detection of early-stage PDAC.
Keywords: pancreatic cancer, pancreatitis, diagnosis, early detection, PAM4, CA19-9
Although imaging methods play an important role in the detection of pancreatic cancer,14 especially in selecting a course of therapy, there are limitations with respect to detection of small lesions,1 as well as for discriminating pancreatic cancer from pancreatitis and other benign lesions.2,5,6 Thus, at present only 7% of all pancreatic cancers are detected early.7 With no effective treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer, the prognosis for most patients is dismal.
Biomarkers potentially can provide a more cost-effective means for early detection and diagnosis, and a great deal of effort has been devoted to biomarker research.816 Such biomarkers also are in high demand for the detection and diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, especially early-stage disease, but as yet no single assay has achieved this role.
We have been engaged in the preclinical and clinical evaluation of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) for the detection, diagnosis, imaging, and treatment of cancer, and have focused on the assessment of the PAM4 antibody, which binds to a large-size mucin17 for the detection and diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC),1821 for imaging,22,23 and for therapy as the clinical reagent 90Y-clivatuzumab tetraxetan.24,25 Our data at the tissue level provide strong evidence that reactivity of the PAM4 antibody is highly restricted to PDAC, and that the specific PAM4-epitope is expressed (or becomes accessible) at the earliest stages of PDAC development; that is, the precursor lesions pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanIN), intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasia (IPMN), and mucinous cystic neoplasm (MCN).17,18 The PAM4-antigen is absent from normal pancreatic tissues and non-neoplastic disease of the pancreas. The antigen was not detected within ducts, acinar cells, nor isolated acinar-ductal metaplasia (ADM) within surgical specimens obtained from over 50 patients with chronic pancreatitis (CP).2022 However, the PAM4-antigen was expressed by invasive PDAC identified in two cases, and in PanIN precursor lesions found in several of the specimens.
We reported recently that a serum-based enzyme immunoassay (EIA) was able to correctly identify 82% of patients with known PDAC and, importantly, that this assay had promising sensitivity for detection of early-stage disease (62% of stage-1 and 86% of stage-2 patients).20 In the present study, we confirm and extend these findings in a much larger patient population that includes both malignant and benign diseases of the pancreas and surrounding tissues. Importantly, we also compare and combine the PAM4 assay with CA19-9 assay results, the latter considered the standard for use in the management of pancreatic cancer, and demonstrate that the unique combination of these two biomarkers provides significantly greater sensitivity for detection of PDAC with high diagnostic value.
Human specimens
Sera from a total of 517 patients with histologically- or cytologically-confirmed diagnoses (assessed at each of the individual medical centers involved) of the pancreaticobiliary and periampullary tissues were received from the Universitätsmedizen Göttingen (UMG, Göttingen, Germany), Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions (JHMI, Baltimore, MD), Immunomedics, Inc. (IMMU, Morris Plains, NJ), and the Cooperative Human Tissue Network (CHTN, Philadelphia, PA). All sera from UMG, JHMI, and CHTN were obtained from patients who had undergone surgical resection. In total, patients with early stage-1 and -2 disease comprised 40% of the PDAC population within this study. In addition, 32 specimens from a control group of patients diagnosed with colon cancer were purchased from ZeptoMetrix Corp. (Buffalo, NY), and 79 specimens from healthy adults were purchased from ZeptoMetrix (Buffalo, NY; N=29) and SeraCare Life Sciences (Milford, MA; N = 50). Separate institutional review boards approved this study, and the New England Institutional Review Board approved the protocol of the Center for Molecular Medicine and Immunology. All specimens were deidentified and the immunoassays were performed in a blinded fashion.
Enzyme immunoassays (EIA)
The PAM4-immunoassay was conducted by the procedure described in a prior report.20 The anonymous serum specimens (300 μL) were first extracted with an equal volume of n-butanol, followed by mixture with an equal volume of chloroform to invert the organic and aqueous layers. The aqueous layer was then evaluated in the PAM4-assay. Nonlinear regression was performed with Prism 4.0 software (GraphPad, La Jolla, CA) to interpolate unknowns.
CA19-9 immunoassays were performed with a commercial kit (BioCheck, Inc., Foster City, CA) according to the manufacturer’s procedure. A value greater than 37 units/mL was considered a positive test. For combination of the PAM4 and CA19-9 immunoassay results, we employed the algorithm: Result = [PAM4]+0.01*[CA19-9]; a value >2.4 units/mL was considered a positive interpretation. This algorithm was chosen by review of ROC curves for maximum area under the curve.
Statistical analyses
ROC curves were evaluated by use of Med-Calc, version 7.5. Regression analyses, non-parametric log-rank comparisons, Student’s t-test, and ANOVA for comparison of test groups were evaluated by use of Prism software, version 4.0 (GraphPad, La Jolla, CA). All tests for statistical significance were two-sided.
Performance characteristics of the PAM4-based EIA
To evaluate immunoassay performance, normal human serum (pool of 5 individuals) was spiked with PAM4-antigen at nominal concentrations surrounding the critical 2.4 units/mL cutoff point (8.26, 3.30, 1.32, and 0 units/mL) and then assayed 14 times over a 2-month period. Linear regression of nominal vs. measured gave a trendline with r2=0.997, indicating a consistent linear relationship over the range of concentrations surrounding the cutoff value (Figure 1). Values for the CV were 11.30% and 12.76% for the 8.26 and 3.30 units/mL spiked sera above the cutoff value, and 20.12% for the 1.32 units/mL below the cutoff, well within the guidelines for reproducibility of 15% above the cutoff and 20% at the cutoff value.20 A cutoff value of 2.4 units/mL, determined by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis in a prior learning set,20 was used as an indicator of positive response.
Figure 1
Figure 1
Accuracy for quantitation of PAM4-antigen spiked into normal human serum. A consistent linear relationship was observed for nominal versus measured at antigen concentrations at or near the cutoff value of 2.4 units/mL.
PAM4-antigen levels in the circulation
Overall sensitivity for detection of PDAC (N=298, with early stages 1 and 2 comprising 40% of cases) was 76%, with a median value of 10.40 units/mL at a specificity of 96% with respect to healthy adults (Table 1). The detection rate for patients with stage-1 disease was 64% (N=28) and, as expected, was considerably higher for advanced disease (85%). For the most part, sera from patients with pancreatic cancers arising from other tissues of origin (squamous, GIST, clear-cell, etc.) did not have detectable levels of the PAM4-antigen. Further, several non-pancreatic cancers with metastases to the pancreas (N=11) were amongst the group of sera evaluated, but only 2, an ovarian and a breast carcinoma, had elevated levels of PAM4-antigen. PAM4-negative metastatic disease to the pancreas included cervical, prostate, and renal cancers, along with melanoma and lymphoma.
Table 1
Table 1
PAM4-antigen levels in patient sera.
Approximately half of the patients with ampullary (48%) and extrahepatic biliary (50%) adenocarcinomas had positive levels of circulating antigen by this assay. Nine of the 13 (69%) PAM4-positive biliary adenocarcinomas were located within the distal bile duct and 4 at the junction of the left and right hepatic ducts (Klatskin tumor). Although small patient numbers were evaluated, sera from patients with duodenal adenocarcinomas were mostly positive for PAM4-antigen, while sera from patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas were mostly negative. Patients with colon carcinoma showed little reactivity in this EIA, with only 5 of 32 (16%) considered positive. PAM4-antigen levels were significantly higher in PDAC than all other patient groups; P<0.0001 for all groups, except extrahepatic biliary adenocarcinoma (P=0.0257).
Of 120 patients diagnosed with benign, non-neoplastic conditions of the pancreas, only 24 (19%) were positive for the PAM4-antigen, and in particular, 18 of 80 (23%) patients with CP were positive. As shown in Figure 2, ROC curve analyses demonstrated a statistically significant difference between the PDAC and CP groups (P<0.0001), with an area under the curve of 0.84±0.02 (95% CI: 0.79–0.89). A similar finding was demonstrated for the comparison of PDAC with all benign specimens taken together (0.85±0.02; 95% CI: 0.82–0.89). The positive and negative likelihood ratios for differentiating PDAC from benign conditions of the pancreas were 4.00 and 0.30, respectively, which were significant (P<0.0001).
Figure 2
Figure 2
ROC curves for the performance of the PAM4-based immunoassay; pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma vs chronic pancreatitis on the left, and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma vs all patients with diagnoses of benign pancreatic disease (including chronic pancreatitis) (more ...)
Circulating levels of CA19-9 are known to be influenced by serum bilirubin.26,27 Thus, we sought to determine if a relationship existed between PAM4-antigen elevation and bilirubin levels in patients with PDAC. There was no such relationship, with PAM4-antigen levels being elevated independent of bilirubin concentration (N=44 cases from a single institution, r2=0.0024, P=0.789).
Comparison of PAM4 and CA19-9 immunoassays
Of the 628 total serum samples, sufficient volume was available to evaluate both PAM4 and CA19-9 antigens in 474 specimens. Overall sensitivity for detection of PDAC was similar for the two assays, 74% and 77% for PAM4 and CA19-9, respectively (Table 2). Sensitivity for detection of stage-1 disease, although somewhat higher for the PAM4-antigen, was also similar, 65% and 58% for PAM4 and CA19-9, respectively (P =0.578). However, specificity was significantly greater for PAM4-antigen, particularly with respect to CP, 86% compared to 68% for the PAM4 and CA19-9 assays, respectively (P=0.014). Also, as expected, CA19-9 results showed considerably higher detection rates for non-PDAC neoplasia, including patients with non-pancreatic cancers that metastasized to the pancreas. Thus, the positive likelihood ratio (+LR) was significantly higher for the PAM4 assay (+LR=5.29) than the CA19-9 assay (+LR=2.41).
Table 2
Table 2
Comparison of PAM4 and CA19-9 antigen levels in patient sera.
Concentrations of circulating PAM4 and CA19-9 antigens in patients with PDAC were independent of each other (r2=0.003, P=0.410); the positive and negative interpretations were concordant in only 68% of the cases. This led us to investigate the potential use of a combined biomarker analysis that ultimately provided an improved overall PDAC detection rate (84%) than either arm alone. Importantly, this increased sensitivity did not have a commensurate significant decrease in specificity. ROC curves and statistical comparisons are presented in Figure 3 and Table 3.
Figure 3
Figure 3
ROC curves for the performance of the PAM4-immunoassay (—— bold black), CA19-9-immunoassay (– – – dashed black), and the combined-biomarker assay ( An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms393597ig1.jpg dotted gray). On the left are the ROC curves for discrimination (more ...)
Table 3
Table 3
Diagnostic performance for PAM4 and CA19-9 biomarkers (ROC curve analyses).
There are several important findings from this study. The primary conclusion is that the PAM4-immunoassay is able to identify approximately two-thirds of stage-1 PDAC patients, and does so with high discriminatory power with respect to benign pancreatic disease. To the best of our knowledge, there are only a few reports that describe the use of a noninvasive biomarker assay to detect stage-1 disease, and the majority of these discuss the performance characteristics of CA19-9.2830 The sensitivity reported for CA19-9 in stage-1 PDAC ranges from 40%-64%, with our results showing a detection rate of 58%. However, the specificity reported for CA19-9 in the literature14,31,32 is considerably lower than reported for the PAM4-antigen, as is also true for the paired study described herein, particularly with respect to discrimination of PDAC and CP. Positive likelihood ratios were significantly higher for the PAM4-immunoassay.
The data suggest that the PAM4-antigen is not expressed by pancreatic tumors originating from non-epithelial tissues. However, PAM4-antigen is expressed and released by biliary and periampullary adenocarcinomas. Detection of these latter cancers, although rare (approximately 3500 new cases/year altogether in the U.S), is likely to prove of clinical value, with follow-up imaging studies providing confirmation of tumor mass and location. That these latter cancers express the PAM4-antigen and are detectable by the PAM4-immunoassay was not unexpected, considering that these tissues are derived from closely-related structures in early embryonic development. Indeed, many of the reported biomarkers for PDAC are reactive with these tumors as well. The limited expression of PAM4 in the control colon cancer group confirms our prior serum assay and immunohistochemical studies indicating that PAM4 has limited elevation with other gastrointestinal and non-gastrointestinal cancers.1720
Also of importance is the ability of the PAM4-immunoassay to discriminate PDAC (and adjacent carcinomas) from benign, non-malignant disease of the pancreas, and in particular, the discrimination of PDAC and CP. In a prior study,20 we reported a discordance between the PAM4-antigen levels in the serum of patients with CP (N=29 with 38% FP) and immunohistochemical data on a separate group of patients with CP, where only 2 of 19 specimens had evidence of weak, focal expression of PAM4-antigen localized to ADM. In a followup immunohistochemical study of an additional 32 surgically resected specimens from CP patients, PAM4 labeling was observed in 6 of 32 (19%); however, PAM4 reactivity was restricted to the PanIN precursor lesions associated with CP, and was not observed in non-neoplastic inflamed pancreatic tissue.21 Taken together, the data from immunohistochemical labeling of over 50 specimens of chronic pancreatitis demonstrate that mAb-PAM4 does not react with the inflamed, non-neoplastic tissues. Thus, the question of the biological and clinical significance of a positive serum PAM4-antigen level in this patient group is of great importance. Are these assay results false positives or do they provide evidence of incipient PDAC (and/or precursor lesions)? Unfortunately, clinical followup for this patient group was unavailable. However, at the very least, the data suggest the need to undertake a prospective investigation to identify PAM4-positive CP patients, and/or others considered to be at high-risk for PDAC, for whom followup surveillance could be performed for potential discovery of early PDAC.
Based on the limitations of the CA19-9 assay (the CA19-9 assay cannot be performed in Lewis antigen-negative patients and is altered by bilirubin levels), we determined that a combined PAM4 and CA19-9 biomarker assay would provide a superior detection and diagnostic tool than either assay alone. Overall sensitivity was improved without loss of specificity. Thus, a positive result provides a rationale for proceeding to diagnostic imaging for confirmation of disease. Further, this combined biomarker assay could play a role in monitoring of treatment and perhaps prove useful for earlier detection of recurrent disease.
Due to the asymptomatic nature of PDAC, and its relatively low incidence, both medical and economic concerns have argued against screening of the general population at large.3335 However, with recent studies providing the ability to identify specific patient groups at high risk for PDAC, a rationale exists for longitudinal surveillance as a means to improve early detection specifically in these risk-settings. Individuals with a family history of PDAC,2,36,37 those patients with long-standing CP,38,39 patients with new-onset diabetes who meet certain other conditions,40,41 or those with FAMMM syndrome,42 etc., could be evaluated on a long-term basis for the detection of early malignant changes by use of the combined PAM4/CA19-9 assay procedure. Imaging has played an important role in these surveillance programs, the most significant being endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) scanning of the pancreas. EUS offers the additional ability to obtain fine-needle aspirates and/or fluids (pancreatic juice and cyst fluids) that can be examined for specific morphologic and biomarker changes representative of malignancy. Several reports have identified increased levels of CEACAMs and CA19-9 antigen,4345 or have observed mutations in KRAS and other genes potentially indicative of cancer from these endoscopically-retrieved materials.15,46,47 Likewise, it is of interest to evaluate these fluids for the PAM4-antigen. However, it is obvious that use of a serum-based biomarker to detect early-stage PDAC would provide a clinically more valuable and cost-effective tool for monitoring patients at high-risk for this disease.
In summary, a blinded analysis of over 600 patient specimens demonstrated that the PAM4-assay could detect two thirds of patients with early PDAC, and did so with high specificity by discriminating PDAC from benign diseases of the pancreas. Further, inclusion of a second biomarker, CA19-9, significantly enhanced overall, positive identification of PDAC patients without loss of specificity. Although we have examined the CA19-9 assay in combination with the PAM4-assay, we appreciate that other biomarkers may prove of equal or greater value in combination with PAM4. Thus, our results provide a basis for future studies of biomarker combinations with PAM4 for surveillance of patients at high risk for PDAC, and as a potential means for monitoring patients with more advanced disease. Finally, the ability of the PAM4-immunoassay to identify a significant number of patients with biliary and periampullary adenocarcinomas, although relatively rare, may provide an additional means for improving the management of patients with these cancers.
Acknowledgments
Funding: This work was supported in part by grants from the National Cancer Institute (CA096924), The Canale Fund, and The Turpin Foundation.
Footnotes
Conflict of interest disclosures: David M. Goldenberg has a financial interest in Immunomedics, Inc. David M Goldenberg and David V Gold are patent inventors. The other authors disclose no conflicts of interest.
1. Gangi S, Fletcher JG, Nathan MA, Christensen JA, Harmsen WS, Crownhart BS, et al. Time interval between abnormalities seen on CT and the clinical diagnosis of pancreatic cancer: retrospective review of CT scans obtained before diagnosis. Am J Roentgenol. 2004;182:897–903. [PubMed]
2. Canto MI, Goggins M, Yeo CJ, Griffin C, Axilbund JE, Brune K, et al. Screening for pancreatic neoplasia in high-risk individuals: an EUS-based approach. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;2:606–21. [PubMed]
3. Canto MI, Goggins M, Hruban RH, Petersen GM, Giardiello FM, Yeo C, et al. Screening for early pancreatic neoplasia in high-risk individuals: a prospective controlled study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;4:766–81. [PubMed]
4. Ludwig E, Olson SH, Bayuga S, Simon J, Schattner MA, Gerdes H, et al. Feasibility and yield of screening in relatives from familial pancreatic cancer families. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011;106:946–54. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
5. Oto A, Eltorky MA, Dave A, Ernst RD, Chen K, Rampy B, et al. Mimicks of pancreatic malignancy in patients with chronic pancreatitis: correlation of computed tomography imaging features with histopathologic findings. Current Probl Diagn Radiol. 2006;35:199–205. [PubMed]
6. Taylor B. Carcinoma of the head of the pancreas versus chronic pancreatitis: diagnostic dilemma with significant consequences. World J Surg. 2003;27:1249–57. [PubMed]
7. Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, Neyman N, Aminou R, Waldron W, et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2008. National Cancer Institute; Bethesda, MD: 2011. http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2008/, based on November 2010 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site.
8. Koopmann J, Rosenzweig CN, Zhang Z, Canto MI, Brown DA, Hunter M, et al. Serum markers in patients with resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma: macrophage inhibitory cytokine 1 versus CA19-9. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12:442–6. [PubMed]
9. Walter K, Hong SM, Nyhan S, Canto M, Fedarko N, Klein A, et al. Serum fatty acid synthase as a marker of pancreatic neoplasia. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009;18:2380–5. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
10. Habbe N, Koorstra JB, Mendell JT, Offerhaus GJ, Ryu JK, Feldmann G, et al. MicroRNA miR-155 is a biomarker of early pancreatic neoplasia. Cancer Biol Ther. 2009;8:340–6. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
11. Buxbaum JL, Eloubeidi MA. Molecular and clinical markers of pancreas cancer. JOP. 2010;11:536–44. [PubMed]
12. Duffy MJ, Sturgeon C, Lamerz R, Haglund C, Holubec VL, Klapdor R, et al. Tumor markers in pancreatic cancer: a European Group on Tumor Markers (EGTM) status report. Ann Oncol. 2010;21:441–7. [PubMed]
13. Brand RE, Nolen BM, Zeh HJ, Allen PJ, Eloubeidi MA, Goldberg M, et al. Serum biomarker panels for the detection of pancreatic cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17:805–16. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
14. Ballehaninna UK, Chamberlain RS. The clinical utility of serum CA19-9 in the diagnosis, prognosis and management of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: An evidence based appraisal. [published online ahead of print April, 2011] J Gastrointest Oncol. 2011 doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2078–6891. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
15. Parsi MA, Li A, Li CP, Goggins M. DNA methylation alterations in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography brush samples of patients with suspected pancreaticobiliary disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;6:1270–8. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
16. Lennon AM, Goggins M. Diagnostic and Therapeutic Response Markers. In: Neoptolemos J, Urrutia R, Abbruzzese J, editors. Pancreatic Cancer. New York: Springer; 2010. pp. 675–701.
17. Gold DV, Lew K, Maliniak R, Hernandez M, Cardillo T. Characterization of monoclonal antibody PAM4 reactive with a pancreatic cancer mucin. Int J Cancer. 1994;57:204–10. [PubMed]
18. Gold DV, Karanjawala Z, Modrak DE, Goldenberg DM, Hruban RH. PAM4-reactive MUC1 is a biomarker for early pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13:7380–7. [PubMed]
19. Gold DV, Modrak DE, Ying Z, Cardillo TM, Sharkey RM, Goldenberg DM. New MUC1 serum immunoassay differentiates pancreatic cancer from pancreatitis. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:252–8. [PubMed]
20. Gold DV, Goggins M, Modrak DE, Newsome G, Liu M, Shi C, et al. Detection of early-stage pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010;19:2786–94. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
21. Shi C, Goldenberg DM, Gold DV. Use of the monoclonal antibody PAM4 to differentiate pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) from chronic pancreatitis and benign nonmucinous cysts of the pancreas. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(suppl 4):abst 188.
22. Gold DV, Cardillo T, Goldenberg DM, Sharkey RM. Localization of pancreatic cancer with radiolabeled monoclonal antibody PAM4. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2001;39:147–54. [PubMed]
23. Gold DV, Goldenberg DM, Karacay H, Rossi EA, Chang CH, Cardillo TM, et al. A novel bispecific, trivalent antibody construct for targeting pancreatic carcinoma. Cancer Res. 2008;68:4819–26. [PubMed]
24. Gulec SA, Cohen SJ, Pennington KL, Zuckier LS, Hauke RJ, Horne H, et al. Treatment of advanced pancreatic carcinoma with 90Y-clivatuzumab tetraxetan: A phase I single-dose escalation trial. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17:4091–400. [PubMed]
25. Ocean AJ, Pennington KL, Guarino MJ, Sheikh A, Bekaii-Saab T, Serafini AN, et al. Fractionated radioimmunotherapy with 90Y-clivatuzumab tetraxetan and low-dose gemcitabine is active in advanced pancreatic cancer: A Phase I trial. Cancer. 2012 May 8; doi: 10.1002/cncr.27592. [Epub ahead of print] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
26. Maestranzi S, Przemioslo R, Mitchell H, Sherwood RA. The effect of benign and malignant liver disease on the tumour markers CA19-9 and CEA. Ann Clin Biochem. 1998;35:99–103. [PubMed]
27. Marrelli D, Caruso S, Pedrazzani C, Neri A, Fernandes E, Marini M, et al. CA19-9 serum levels in obstructive jaundice: clinical value in benign and malignant conditions. Am J Surg. 2009;198:333–9. [PubMed]
28. Safi F, Schlosser W, Kolb G, Beger HG. Diagnostic value of CA19-9 in patients with pancreatic cancer and nonspecific gastrointestinal symptoms. J Gastrointest Surg. 1997;1:106–12. [PubMed]
29. Ferrone CR, Finkelstein DM, Thayer SP, Muzikansky A, Fernandez-delCastillo C, Warshaw AL. Perioperative CA19-9 levels can predict stage and survival in patients with resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:2897–902. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
30. Kim YC, Kim HJ, Park JH, Park DI, Cho YK, Sohn CI, et al. Can preoperative CA19-9 and CEA levels predict the resectability of patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma? J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;24:1869–75. [PubMed]
31. Steinberg W. The clinical utility of the CA 19-9 tumor-associated antigen. Am J Gastroenterol. 1990;85:350–5. [PubMed]
32. Singh S, Tang SJ, Sreenarasimhaiah J, Lara LF, Siddiqui A. The clinical utility and limitations of serum carbohydrate antigen (CA19-9) as a diagnostic tool for pancreatic cancer and cholangiocarcinoma. Dig Dis Sci. 2011;56:2491–6. [PubMed]
33. Siegel R, Ward E, Brawley O, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2011. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2011;2011(61):212–236. doi: 10.3322/caac.2011. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
34. Goggins M. Identifying molecular markers for the early detection of pancreatic neoplasia. Semin Oncol. 2007;34:303–10. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
35. Chari ST. Detecting early pancreatic cancer: Problems and prospects. Semin Oncol. 2007;34:284–94. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
36. Zubarik R, Gordon SR, Lidofsky SD, Anderson SR, Pipas JM, Badger G, et al. Screening for pancreatic cancer in a high-risk population with serum CA19-9 and targeted EUS: a feasibility study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;74:87–95. [PubMed]
37. Brentnall TA, Bronner MP, Byrd DR, Haggitt RC, Kimmey MB. Early diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic dysplasia in patients with a family history of pancreatic cancer. Ann Intern Med. 1999;131:247–55. [PubMed]
38. Lowenfels AB, Maisonneuve P, Cavallini G, Ammann RW, Lankisch PG, Andersen JR, et al. Pancreatitis and the risk of pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med. 1993;328:1433–7. [PubMed]
39. Lowenfels AB, Maisonneuve P, DiMagno EP, Elitsur Y, Gates LK, Jr, Perrault J, et al. Hereditary pancreatitis and the risk of pancreatic cancer. International Hereditary Pancreatitis Study Group. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1997;89:442–6. [PubMed]
40. Chari ST, Leibson CL, Rabe KG, Ransom J, de Andrade M, Petersen GM. Probability of pancreatic cancer following diabetes: a population based study. Gastroenterology. 2005;129:504–11. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
41. Pannala R, Basu A, Petersen GM, Chari ST. New-onset diabetes: a potential clue to the early diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10:88–95. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
42. Rutter JL, Bromley CM, Goldstein AM, Elder DE, Holly EA, Guerry D, 4th, et al. Heterogeneity of risk for melanoma and pancreatic and digestive malignancies: a melanoma case-control study. Cancer. 2004;101:2809–16. [PubMed]
43. Snozek CL, Mascarenhas RC, O’Kane DJ. Use of cyst fluid CEA, CA19-9, and amylase for evaluation of pancreatic lesions. Clin Biochem. 2009;42:1585–8. [PubMed]
44. Brugge WR, Lewandrowski K, Lee-Lewandrowski E, Centeno BA, Szydlo T, Regan S, et al. Diagnosis of pancreatic cystic neoplasms: a report of the cooperative pancreatic cyst study. Gastroenterology. 2004;126:1330–6. [PubMed]
45. Ke E, Patel BB, Liu T, Li XM, Haluszka O, Hoffman JP, et al. Proteomic analyses of pancreatic cyst fluids. Pancreas. 2009;38:e33–42. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
46. Wu J, Matthaei H, Maitra A, Dal Molin M, Wood LD, Eshleman JR, et al. Recurrent GNAS mutations define an unexpected pathway for pancreatic cyst development. Sci Transl Med. 2011;3:92ra66. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
47. Schoedel KE, Finkelstein SD, Ohori NP. K-Ras and microsatellite marker analysis of fine-needle aspirates from intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas. Diagn Cytopathol. 2006;34:605–8. [PubMed]