Quantitative Correlation between the Biochemical Markers and The Extent of Metastatic Bone Tumors.
- Author:
Soo Kyung KIM
1
;
Deok Su CHO
;
Hyun Seon BAEK
;
Se Hwa KIM
;
Min Chul KIM
;
Sung Hye SHIN
;
Young Hee LEE
;
Joo Hung PARK
Author Information
1. Department of Internal Medicine, Presbyterian Medical Center, Chonju, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Metastatic bone disease;
Pyridinoline;
Deoxypyridinoline
- MeSH:
Biomarkers*;
Creatinine;
Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay;
Humans;
Neoplasm Metastasis;
Osteocalcin
- From:Journal of the Korean Cancer Association
1997;29(2):257-265
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: We investigated the usefulness of urinary pyridinoline (uPyr) and deoxypyridinoline (uDpyr) and serum osteocalcin as markers of bone metastasis, particularly focussing on quantitative correlation between the degree of bone metastasis and the level of biochemical markers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: By using ELISA method we measured the levels of uPyr, uDpyr, and osteocalcin in 100 cancer patients of whom 58 patients had bone metastasis, 42 had no bone metastasis, and 44 control subjects. RESULTS: There was a significant difference in uPyr level between the patients with bone metastasis and the patients without bone metastasis or control group (mean+/-SD, 70.26+/-43.11 vs 38.93+/-21.48 or 25.13+/-8.81 nM/mM Creatinine, p<0.05). And uDpyr level showed more significant elevation in the patients with bone metastasis than in the patients without bone metastasis and in control group (12.63+/-7.51 vs 6.44+/-3.58 and 4.23+/-1.70 nM/mM Creatinine p<0.05). Osteocalcin level showed no significant difference among groups. We could demonstrate a significant quantitative correlation between the extent of bone metastasis and the amount of uPyr (r=0.7482, p<0.001) or uDpyr (r=0.5992, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: uPyr and uDpyr were significantly increased in metastatic bone tumors and quantitatively correlated well with the extent of bone metastasis. Therefore we can use these two markers as an evidence of bone metastasis. Further studies are recommended to decide the usefulness of these markers in the early detection of bone metastasis and in the assessment of response to antiresorptive treatments.
