Despite the use of screening programs, gastric cancer (GC) diagnosis may only be possible at an advanced stage. In this study, we examined the serum levels of C-C chemokine receptor type 5 (CCR5), C-C motif chemokine ligand 5 (CCL5), platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), and EphrinA7 (EphA7) in patients with gastric carcinoma and healthy controls to investigate the significance and usability of these potential biomarkers in the early diagnosis of GC. The study enrolled 69 GC patients and 40 healthy individuals. CCR5, CCL5, PDGF-BB, and EphA7 levels, which have been identified in the carcinogenesis of many cancers, were measured in the blood samples using the ELISA method. CCR5, CCL5, PDGF-BB, and EphA7 were all correlated with GC diagnosis (CCR5, p < 0.001, r = −0.449; CCL5, p = 0.014, r = −0.234; PDGF-BB, p < 0.001, r = −0.700; EPHA7, p < 0.001, r = −0.617). The serum CCR5, EphA7, and especially the PDGF-BB levels of the patients diagnosed with GC were discovered to be significantly higher compared to the healthy controls. PDGF-BB had the highest positive and negative predictive values when evaluated in ROC analysis to determine its diagnostic significance (cut-off value: 59.8 ng/L; AUC: 0.92 (0.87–0.97)). As far as we know, this is the first study to investigate the potential connection between GC and these four biomarkers. The fact that serum CCR5, CCL5, EphA7, and especially PDGF-BB levels in the patient group were significantly higher compared to healthy controls indicates that they can be used with high accuracy in the early diagnosis of GC. In addition, the levels of CCR5, PDGF-BB, and EphA7 can be used as important indicators to predict the biological behavior and prognosis of GC.

This study was conducted to investigate the serum levels of membrane-bound mucin 2 (MUC2) in breast cancer (BC) patients and the relationship with tumour progression and known prognostic parameters. We enrolled 127 female patients with histopathologically diagnosed BC who did not receive chemotherapy (CT) or radiotherapy. Serum MUC2 levels were measured by the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) method and compared with those of 40 age and sex-matched healthy controls. Median age of diagnosis was 50 (range: 26–78). Twenty-eight (22%) patients were metastatic and the most frequent site of metastasis was bone (n = 17, 61%). The median serum MUC2 level of BC patients was significantly higher than that of the controls (198 vs. 54 ng/mL, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between patients and controls according to known disease-related clinicopathological or laboratory parameters (p > 0.05). Serum MUC2 levels were not associated with survival (p = 0.65). Although serum MUC2 levels might have a diagnostic role, their predictive and prognostic role in survival in BC patients was not detected. Serum levels of MUC2 should be investigated for diagnostic or screening purposes on a larger scale.

Aim: To understand whether the worldwide implementation of PD‐L1 testing in triple‐negative breast cancer (TNBC) can be achieved in routine clinical practice. Methods and results: The multicentre retrospective observational VANESSA study consecutively and uniformly enrolled patients treated with systemic therapy for early or metastatic (e/m)TNBC diagnosed between 2014 and 2017. PD‐L1 status was retrospectively assessed locally and centrally using the VENTANA PD‐L1 (SP142) Assay (PD‐L1 expression on tumour‐infiltrating immune cells covering ≥1% of the tumour area). The primary objective was to determine the prevalence of PD‐L1 positivity assessed locally on primary and/or metastatic tumour tissue. Concordance between local and central testing was a secondary endpoint. PD‐L1‐positive prevalence was 38% in eTNBC (728/1902) and 20% in mTNBC (30/152) and was higher in submitted tissue size >5 versus <5 mm diameter (eTNBC: 43% versus 16%; mTNBC: 24% versus 13%). Among 1967 samples tested both centrally and locally, concordance was 75% (Cohen's κ coefficient 0.52, 95% CI 0.48–0.55) and was similar regardless of cohort (eTNBC versus mTNBC), sample collection method (biopsy versus resection) or sample origin (primary versus metastatic). PD‐L1‐positive prevalence was higher by central versus local assessment (eTNBC: 55% versus 39%; mTNBC: 26% versus 20%). Conclusion: In this real‐world study, PD‐L1‐positive prevalence was lower than in prospective trials assessing PD‐L1 status centrally, lower in mTNBC than eTNBC, lower in smaller than larger tissue samples and lower by local than central assessment. These findings underline the importance of central PD‐L1 testing on sufficiently large samples to ensure optimal selection for therapies targeting PD‐(L)1 in mTNBC.