Disorders of the Pleura |

Soluble Mesothelin-Related Peptide in the Pleural Fluid as a Diagnostic Marker in Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma FREE TO VIEW

Anna Maria Carletti*, MD; Massimiliano Sivori, MD; Paola Ferro, MD; Enrico Battolla, MD; Maria Franceschini, MD; Franco Fedeli, MD; Silvio Roncella, MD; Pier Aldo Canessa, MD
Author and Funding Information

S.C. Pneumologia, ASL5 Spezzino, Ospedale San Bartolomeo, Sarzana, Italy

Chest. 2012;142(4_MeetingAbstracts):494A. doi:10.1378/chest.1373488
Text Size: A A A
Published online


SESSION TYPE: Pleural Biomarkers

PRESENTED ON: Monday, October 22, 2012 at 04:00 PM - 05:30 PM

PURPOSE: Soluble mesothelin-related peptides (SMRP) are an FDA approved biomarker for the diagnosis and monitoring of pleural malignant mesothelioma (MPM). We report the SMRP levels in pleural fluid from a cohort of Italian patients and its utility in clinical management of MPM pleural effusions (MPM-PE).

METHODS: We evaluated SMRP in 52 MPM-PE (35 epithelioid, 9 sarcomatoid, 4 biphasic, 2 desmoplastic, 2 papillary), 129 benign PE (B-PE) and 94 non-MPM pleural metastasis (Mts-PE) by means of the MesoMark ELISA kit. The diagnostic performance parameters were estimated through analysis of the ROC curve and the Youden's index was applied to obtain the biomarker's cut-off level of maximum discrimination. For each cut off, sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp) were calculated. The degree of correlation and P value were calculated using the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and the Chi-square test, respectively. Comparison between SMRP detection and cytology was also performed.

RESULTS: The median SMRP levels was significantly higher in MPM-PE (28.2 nM) than in B-PE (3.2 nM) or Mts-PE (3.8 nM). MPM-PE yielded an AUC of 84.5 (p<0.001) vs B-PE and an AUC of 79.6 (p<0.001) vs Mts-PE. The cut off level of maximum discrimination between MPM vs each patient groups was 9.30 nmol/L. At this cut off value, we established Se=75%, Sp=93% for MPM-PE vs B-PE and SP=81% for MPM-PE vs Mts-PE. We found SMRP-positive cases (≥ cut off) in 38/52 (73.1%) MPM-PE, in 9/129 (7.0%) B-PE (DOR=40, p<0.001) and in 18/94 (19.1%) Mts-PE (DOR=13, p< 0.001). In 38/52 PE, with SMPR levels ≥ cut off, cytology was found positive in 11/38 (28.9%), negative in 20/38 (52.6%) and in 7/38 (18.4%) was considered suspicious. Moreover, in 4/15 (26.7%) cases of cytology-positive MPM-PE, the levels of SMPR resulted negative.

CONCLUSIONS: SMPR detection in MPM-PE may provide additional diagnostic value to cytology. Combination of SMPR and cytology may increase diagnostic yield if both tests are performed together.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: SMPR analysis may be incorporated into clinical practice of MPM-PE in patients with suspected malignant mesothelioma.

DISCLOSURE: The following authors have nothing to disclose: Anna Maria Carletti, Massimiliano Sivori, Paola Ferro, Enrico Battolla, Maria Franceschini, Franco Fedeli, Silvio Roncella, Pier Aldo Canessa

No Product/Research Disclosure Information

S.C. Pneumologia, ASL5 Spezzino, Ospedale San Bartolomeo, Sarzana, Italy




Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Find Similar Articles
CHEST Journal Articles
PubMed Articles
  • CHEST Journal
    Print ISSN: 0012-3692
    Online ISSN: 1931-3543