Gastro Medical News about gastric cancer, macrophage migration-inhibitory factor

Most Viewed Abstracts

1. Report Shows Shift in Starting Salaries for Physicians

2. Use of Antiemetic Agents in Acute Gastroenteritis

3. 2008 Exclusive Survey—Earnings: Good news for primary care income

4. A randomised phase III study on capecitabine, oxaliplatin and bevacizumab with or without cetuximab in first-line advanced colorectal cancer, the CAIRO2 study of the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group (DCCG). An interim analysis of toxicity

5. Medicare pay-for-reporting effort draws fire from frustrated doctors

Your Article Summary

See Latest Articles

(Click the title below to leave the MDLinx Network and go to the Journal's Website)

Serum macrophage migration-inhibitory factor as a diagnostic and prognostic biomarker for gastric cancer
Cancer, 08/20/09

Hua-Xiang Xia et al. - In a study to determine the potential diagnostic value of migration-inhibitory factor (MIF) for gastric cancer in pts presenting with dyspepsia and its prognostic value for gastric cancer, it was reported that serum MIF level, which correlates with gastric MIF expression, is a better molecular marker than CEA in diagnosing gastric cancer in pts presenting with dyspepsia. A combination of serum MIF and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) predicts 5-yr survival better than the individual test.

Methods

97 pts with histologically confirmed gastric adenocarcinoma and 222 pts with dyspepsia were recruited.
Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was used to measure serum MIF and CEA.

Results

Serum MIF concentrations were 6554.0 ± 204.1 pg/mL and 1453.7 ± 79.9 pg/mL, respectively, in gastric cancer pts and dyspeptic pts.
Serum MIF levels increased with advancing gastric pathologies.
With the cutoff value of 3230 pg/mL, serum MIF had sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 83.5%, 92.3%, and 89.7%, respectively, in diagnosing gastric cancer; whereas rates were 60.8%, 83.3%, and 76.5%, respectively, for serum CEA.
Gastric cancer pts with serum MIF levels above 6600 pg/mL had a lower 5-yr survival rate than those with serum MIF level below that level.
Higher serum CEA levels were associated with poor survival.
Prediction for 5-yr survival was even better, using a combination of serum MIF and CEA.