Soluble Axl Is a Novel Diagnostic Biomarker of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Chinese Patients with Chronic Hepatitis B Virus Infection

Xiaoting Song; Ailu Wu; Zhixiao Ding; Shixiong Liang; Chunyan Zhang

doi:10.4143/crt.2019.749

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Cancer Res Treat > Volume 52(3); 2020 > Article

Original Article Soluble Axl Is a Novel Diagnostic Biomarker of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Chinese Patients with Chronic Hepatitis B Virus Infection: Xiaoting Song, MD^1,2, Ailu Wu, MD^1,3, Zhixiao Ding, MD², Shixiong Liang, PhD^1,, Chunyan Zhang, PhD^1,; Cancer Research and Treatment : Official Journal of Korean Cancer Association 2020;52(3):789-797.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2019.749
Published online: March 5, 2020

¹Guangxi Medical University Cancer Hospital, Nanning, China

²People’s Hospital of Wudi County, Binzhou, China

³The Affiliated Yantai Yuhuangding Hospital of Qingdao University Institution, Yantai, China

Correspondence: Chunyan Zhang, PhD Guangxi Medical University Cancer Hospital, Nanning 530021, Guangxi, China
Tel: 86-0771-5776046 Fax: 86-0771-5312000 E-mail: zcy65432@sina.com

Co-correspondence: Shixiong Liang, PhD Guangxi Medical University Cancer Hospital, Nanning 530021, Guangxi, China
Tel: 86-0771-5335671 Fax: 86-0771-5312000 E-mail: shixliang@vip.sina.com

*Xiaoting Song, Ailu Wu, and Zhixiao Ding contributed equally to this work.

• Received: December 6, 2019 • Accepted: March 2, 2020

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

8,009 Views
189 Download
18 Web of Science
17 Crossref
19 Scopus

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract

Purpose
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic value of soluble Axl (sAxl) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in comparison with serum α-fetoprotein (AFP).
Materials and Methods
Eighty HCC patients, 80 liver cirrhosis patients (LC), 80 patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, and 80 healthy controls (HC) were enrolled. sAxl levels were measured by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, serum AFP levelswere measured by an electrochemiluminescence immunoassay. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to evaluate diagnostic performances.
Results
The results show that levels of sAxl were high expression in patients with HCC (p < 0.05), varied with disease state as follows: HCC > LC > HC > HBV. Logistic regression and ROC curve analysis identified the optimal cut-off for sAxl in differentiating all HCC and non-HCC patients was 1,202 pg/mL (area under the receiver operating characteristic [AUC], 0.888; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.852 to 0.924) with sensitivity 95.0%, specificity 73.3%. Furthermore, differential diagnosis of early HCC with non-HCC patients for sAxl showed the optimal cut-off was 1,202 pg/mL (AUC, 0.881; 95% CI, 0.831 to 0.931; sensitivity, 94.1%; specificity, 73.3%). Among AFP-negative HCC patients with non-HCC patients, the cut-off was 1,301 pg/mL (AUC, 0.898; 95% CI, 0.854 to 0.942) with a sensitivity of 84.6%, a specificity of 76.3%. The optimal cut-off for sAxl in differentiating all HCC and chronic liver disease patients was 1,243 pg/mL (AUC, 0.840; 95% CI, 0.791 to 0.888) with sensitivity 93.8%, specificity 61.9%. The combination of AFP and sAxl increased diagnostic value for HCC.
Conclusion
sAxl outperforms AFP in detecting HCC, especially in early HCC and in AFP-negative HCC. Combination sAxl with AFP improved the specificity for early HCC diagnosis. In summary, sAxl is a candidate serum marker for diagnosing HCC.
Key words: Hepatocellular carcinoma, Biomarker, Diagnosis, Soluble Axl

Introduction

Primary liver cancer (PLC) mainly includes hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) and the mixed type of HCC and ICC. HCC accounts for more than 90% of PLC. According to Cancer Statistics in China in 2015, the crude incidence rate of liver cancer was 26.92 per 100,000 population (males and females were 27.4 and 9.6 per 100,000 population). And the mortality was 23.72 per 100,000 population (males and females were 24.2 and 8.4 per 100,000 population) [1,2]. Although valid approaches such as surgical resection, liver transplantation or percutaneous were provided to treat early-stage HCC (the maximum diameter of a single cancer node or the sum of the diameters of two adjacent cancer nodes does not exceed 3 cm), showing a favorable 5-year survival rate of 70%, the majority cases of HCC are diagnosed at advanced stages losing therapeutic options, leading to a median survival of < 1 year [3]. Therefore, effective and accurate detection of HCC at an early stage is highly desired and may lead to more effective treatment and extent patient survival. The detection of serum biomarkers is the most promising approach and of tremendous importance as a non-invasive sampling.

Measurement of serum α-fetoprotein (AFP) levels is the gold standard for high-risk patients to detect HCC at an early stage [4]. However, due to its low diagnostic accuracy with sensitivities ranging from 25%-65% and a specificity 74%-94%, it is less than satisfactory as a widely used biomarker in the clinic [5,6]. Several new candidate biomarkers have been proposed to complement AFP and increased the accuracy of HCC detection, such as lectin-bound AFP (AFP-L3%), des-γ-carboxyprothrombin, glypican3, Golgi protein-73, and Dickkopf-1. However, diagnostic values of all have controversial that limited clinical usefulness [6-9]. Thus, further research is necessary and urgent to identify additional novel candidates.

The receptor tyrosine kinase Axl belongs to the TAM family, which is comprised of Axl, tyro3, and Mer. Axl is activated by binding of ligand growtharrest specific protein six leading to dimerization and downstream signaling, which enhanced proliferation, survival, invasion, and metastasis [10,11]. Overexpression of Axl has been detected in many tumor types, in HCC as well [12-14]. Furthermore, Axl can be proteolytically processed, resulting in the release of an 80-kDa soluble protein (sAxl) that can be observed in serum [15,16]. Recently, studies investigated that serum sAxl had better accuracy than AFP for diagnosis of early-stage HCC [17-19].

Guangxi province is a high incidence and mortality endemic area of HCC in China. Three thousand eight hundred members high-risk population cohort nested with case-control study method have been established since 2003. The major risk factor for HCC in the local area is still chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection [20,21]. In this study, the primary aim was retrospectively to investigate the levels of peripheral serum sAxl and AFP with respecting to the sensitivity, specificity, area under the recei-ver operating characteristic (AUC) of each biomarker alone and a combination of two based on the serum samples of high-risk population cohort which comprised of HCC pati-ents with HBV infection, patients with HBV-related liver cirrhosis (LC), patients with chronic HBV infection or healthy controls (HC). In addition, we evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of them for early-stage HCC.

Materials and Methods

1. Patients and serum samples

Serum samples from 80 patients with HBV infection HCC (HCC group), 80 patients with HBV-related liver cirrhosis (LC group), 80 patients with chronic hepatitis B virus infection (HBV group) or 80 healthy controls (HC group) were collected from Experimental Department of Guangxi Medical University Cancer Hospital, in China from October 2016 to July 2017. Serum samples were collected prior to therapeutic intervention. Taken venous blood samples in the early morning and allowed samples to clot for about 2 hours at room temperature before centrifuged for 15 minutes at 1,000 ×g. Remove serum and store samples at –80℃ until further assay. The diagnosis of primary HCC was based on guidelines of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases [22]. All patients were diagnosed either by histopathological results after surgical resection or by imaging findings (ultrasound, computed tomography or magnetic resonance) combined with AFP serum levels. HBV infection background was diagnosed on hepatitis B surface antigen. HCs were tested through routine physical examination. The exclusion criteria of HCs were based on alterations in serology, liver and kidney function and apparent chronic inflammatory diseases. Tumor stage was decided according to the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) [23]. In this study, early-stage HCC (n=34) was defined as stage BCLC 0 (n=1) and BCLC A (n=33). Clinical information such as age, sex, tumor size, tumor number, vascular involvement, lymph node metastasis, HBV infection background, AFP level, and BCLC stage was obtained from a database of the Affiliated Tumor Hospital of Guangxi Medical University.

2. Quantification of sAxl by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and AFP by electrochemiluminescence immunoassay

Levels of human sAxl were measured by using a commercially available enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kits (human sAxl ELISA kit, Cusabio, Wuhan, China) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Meanwhile, serum AFP was detected using electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (Elecsys and cobas e analyzers, Roche Diagnostics Mannheim, Germany) from the clinical laboratory of tumor hospital.

3. Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed with IBM SPSS software ver. 22.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY) and MedCalc software ver. 12.7.0 (Ostend, Belgium). Results were presented as medians (interquartile ranges). Nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test was carried out for multiple comparisons and nonparametric two-sided Mann-Whitney test for comparisons between groups. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were utilized to evaluate diagnostic value. Binary logistic regression was generated to evaluate the performance of a combinatorial variable of two biomarkers. In this study, p < 0.05 or p < 0.017 (Bonferroni check) were considered statistically significant.

4. Ethical statement

This study was retrospectively conducted and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Guangxi Medical University Cancer Hospital. Informed consent was obtained from all inductees before the work began.

Results

1. Patient characteristics

A total of 320 participants were enrolled in our study. Demographic, clinical characteristics and classification of the study participants were shown in Table 1. The most common cause of liver disease was HBV infection in group HCC, group LC, and group HBV. The HCC was developed from liver cirrhosis. There were no significant differences between each group in age and sex aspect.

2. Levels of serum sAxl are significantly high in HCC patients

Serum of 320 participants was assessed for sAxl levels by ELISA. As shown in Table 2, the median levels of sAxl in HCC patients was 2,020 pg/mL, which was significantly higher in comparison to LC patients (1,505 pg/mL), HBV patients (489 pg/mL), and HCs (678 pg/mL, p < 0.05) (Fig. 1A). Although, the median concentration of healthy controls (678 pg/mL) was higher than that of HBV patients (489 pg/mL), there was no significant difference between them (p > 0.05). Similarly, significantly increased median concentration of AFP was found in HCC patients (162.3 ng/mL), compared to LC patients (16.7 ng/mL), HBV patients (7.0 ng/mL), and healthy controls (2.6 ng/mL) (all p < 0.05) (Fig. 2). HCCs were divided into AFP-positive HCC and AFP-negative HCC, according to 20.0 ng/mL of AFP levels. Significantly, the median concentration of sAxl was also increased in AFP-negative HCC and AFP-positive HCC (Fig. 1B). We also obtained a significant difference between AFP-negative HCC and non-HCC patients (p < 0.05). Also increased the median concentration of sAxl was observed in different BCLC stages. We did not detect any differences between each stage (p > 0.05) (Fig. 1C).

3. Diagnostic value of sAxl in detecting HCC

To evaluate the diagnostic value of sAxl, an ROC curve was generated to identify the optimal cut-off, sensitivity, and specificity (Tables 3 and 4). sAxl exhibited an AUC of 0.888 with a sensitivity of 95% and a specificity of 73.3% at a cutoff of 1,202 pg/mL for all HCC vs. non-HCC (Fig. 3A). When the analysis was limited to all HCC vs. chronic liver disease (CLD), the resulting AUC was 0.840 with 93.8% sensitivity and 61.9% specificity at a cut-off of 1,243 pg/mL (Fig. 3B). Interestingly, sAxl outperformed AFP in diagnostic performance of AUC and sensitivity in both HCC vs non-HCC or CLD (all p < 0.017). Next, we also assessed the diagnostic performance of a combination of two markers. Results showed that combined analysis improved AUC than sAxl alone (all p < 0.017), but significance was not found in sensitivity and specificity (all p > 0.017) (Fig. 3A and B).

4. Diagnostic value of sAxl in early HCC and AFP-negative HCC

We next investigated diagnostic performance of sAxl in early HCC (BCLC 0+A, n=34) and AFP-negative HCC (AFP ≤ 20 ng/mL). In differential diagnosis of early HCC versus non-HCC, sAxl also displayed higher accuracy (AUC, 0.881) and sensitivity (94.1%) as compared to AFP (AUC, 0.705; sensitivity, 58.8%) (Tables 3 and 4, Fig. 3C). Combined detection of two markers improved specificity than sAxl alone (p < 0.017). Binary logistic regression was further performed to create new variable predicted the probability for early HCC versus CLD, variables of AFP was not in the equation as p > 0.05. Results were similarly found in this part that sAxl had a better AUC and sensitivity than AFP (p < 0.017) (Fig. 3D). Parallel combined detection indicated a higher specificity than markers alone (p < 0.017). Furthermore, sAxl was able to distinguish AFP-negative HCC from non-HCC with an AUC of 0.898, 84.6% sensitivity, and 76.3% specificity (Fig. 3E). Similarly, when AFP-negative HCC were compared with CLD, sAxl exhibited an AUC of 0.849 with a sensitivity of 73.1% and a specificity of 74.4% (Fig. 3F).

Discussion

HCC remains a kind of lethal malignant tumor worldwide and is still difficult to diagnostic in the early stage. One-third of HCC patients are AFP-negative [24,25]. It is greatly needed to identify a novel serum marker for HCC. sAxl levels have been used as a potential marker of HCC in current reports [17-19]. Therefore, we examined levels of sAxl to test and verify the diagnosis power in HCC. The results demonstrated that sAxl yielded an AUC of 0.888 with 95.0% sensitivity and 73.3% specificity in differentiating HCC from non-HCC that AUC of 0.840 with 93.8% sensitivity and 61.9% specificity in differentiating HCC from CLD. Furthermore, sAxl gave a similarly differentiating power in the diagnosis of early HCC and both AFP-negative HCC. Moreover, the combined measurement of sAxl and AFP can further improved diagnostic value for the detection of HCC. Our results suggest that sAxl is a potentially useful marker for HCC.

Our study showed that levels of serum sAxl of HCC were significantly higher compared to LC, HBV, and HC. It may reflect that sAxl can be used to monitor disease progression in patients with HCC and be distinguished HCC from LC, HBV, or HC. Dengler et al. [18] suggested that sAxl was predominantly released by myofibroblasts during fibrosis progression supported by the fact that sAxl was strongly released in six out of seven liver myofibroblasts cell lines under investigation and increased sAxl levels in advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis was observed significantly when compared to healthy controls. Staufer et al. [26] showed that sAxl was an accurate biomarker for advanced fibrosis and LC in comparison to established non-invasive fibrosis markers such as enhanced liver fibrosis test and transient elastography (Fibroscan). Further study showed that sAxl played an important role in the progression of liver fibrosis [27,28]. High levels of sAxl was also detected in LC group in our study which may reflect that sAxl was interrelated with fibrosis or LC. A great deal of studies indicated that Axl is relevant with tumorigenesis such as proliferation, survival, invasion, and metastasis [10-12,29,30]. Therefore, the molecular mechanism needs to be further explored.

Although Reichl et al. [17] had shown that the expression of sAxl in HCC was higher than in breast, ovarian and colorectal cancer, nevertheless sAxl as a biomarker has low specificity in the diagnosis of HCC in our study. It is necessary to combined sAxl with specific biomarkers such as AFP and other tumor markers to overcome the limitation. On the other hand, we have not found that sAxl have connection with BCLC stage. We prospect that a tumor marker could meet the following criteria such as specific overexpression in tumor but not in normal cells, rare expression in human normal tissues except in embryonic tissue and can be easily detected. Further exploration is needed for our study.

HBV infection is the main reason for HCC in China [21]. But patters were different from other areas, such as the United States, Europe, and Japan. Results were inspired of sAxl in diagnosis HCC with HBV in our study. It is significant to explore diagnostic power in non-HBV–related HCC.

Furthermore, 34 early-stage HCC (42.5%) which were defined into BCLC 0+A and 26 AFP-negative HCC (32.5%) were recruited in the study. The sample size and proportion were small. Therefore, the diagnostic power of sAxl in early-stage HCC or AFP-negative HCC was indeed.

Our study belongs to cross-sectional and retrospective in nature, but it lacks randomization and short-term follow-up. We intend to do a prospective study with local characteristics in Guangxi province to validate diagnosis value of sAxl and further explore the relationship of sAxl with clinical characters.

In conclusion, our study indicated that sAxl has differentiating power to diagnosis HCC, especially for early-stage HCC or AFP-negative HCC. Therefore, sAxl is a promising biochemical marker of HCC.

NOTES

Conflict of interest relevant to this article was not reported.

Fig. 1.

Soluble Axl (sAxl) concentration in serum in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients. (A) Serum sAxl in HCC group and controls. (B) Serum sAxl in α-fetoprotein (AFP)–positive HCC group and AFP-negative HCC. (C) Serum sAxl in HCC defined in Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stages with 0+A, B, C, D. PLC, primary liver cancer; LC, liver cirrhosis; HBV, hepatitis B virus; HC, healthy control.

Fig. 2.

α-Fetoprotein (AFP) concentration in serum in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients. (A) Serum AFP in HCC group and controls. (B) Serum AFP in AFP-positive HCC group and AFP-negative HCC. (C) Serum AFP in HCC defined in Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stages with 0+A, B, C, D. PLC, primary liver cancer; LC, liver cirrhosis; HBV, hepatitis B virus; HC, healthy control.

Fig. 3.

Diagnostic performance of soluble Axl (sAxl) and α-fetoprotein (AFP) in diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. (A) ROC curve of sAxl in all HCC versus non-HCC. (B) ROC curve of sAxl in all HCC versus chronic liver disease (CLD). (C) ROC curve of sAxl in early HCC versus non-HCC. (D) ROC curve of sAxl in early HCC versus CLD. (E) ROC curve of sAxl in AFP-negative HCC versus non-HCC. (F) ROC curve of sAxl in AFP-negative HCC versus CLD. LC, liver cirrhosis; HBV, hepatitis B virus; HC, healthy control.

Table 1.

Demographic and clinical characteristics of the study participants

Clinical characteristic	HCC	LC	HBV	HC
No. of patients	80	80	80	80
Sex (male/female)	57/23	62/18	63/17	55/25
Age, mean±SD (yr)	50.7±9.1	49.0±11.9	49.6±9.7	51.6±9.7
BCLC stage (0/A/B/C/D)	1/33/14/28/4	-	-	-
AFP (≤ 15 ng/mL/> 15 ng/mL)	26/54	39/41	48/52	80/0
HBV status (positive/negative)	80/0	80/0	80/0	0/80

HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; LC, liver cirrhosis; HBV, hepatitis B virus infection; HC, healthy controls; SD, standard deviation; BCLC, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer; AFP, α-fetoprotein.

Table 2.

sAxl and AFP levels of the study population

Group	No.	sAxl (pg/mL)	AFP (ng/mL)
HCC	80	2,020 (1,546-2,526)	162.3 (6.4-3,514.5)
LC	80	1,505 (1,004-1,911)^a)	16.7 (3.5-79.7)^a)
HBV	80	489 (296-887)^a),b)	7.0 (3.2-124.6)^a),b)
HC	80	678 (469-893)^a),b),c)	2.6 (2.0-4.2)^a),b),d)
AFP-positive HCC	54	2,004 (1,554-2,469)	627.6 (152.5-9,488.0)
AFP-negative HCC	26	2,100 (1,442-2,717)^e)	3.9 (3.0-6.4)^f)
BCLC (0+A)	34	1,984 (1,532-2,511)^g)	91.1 (4.0-613.2)^g)
BCLC (B)	14	2,060 (1,399-2,724)^g)	682.4 (68.0-8,446.3)^g)
BCLC (C)	28	1,940 (1,546-2,335)^g)	229.0 (6.0-9,620.0)^g)
BCLC (D)	4	2,524 (1,784-3,817)^g)	852.5 (40.9-4,533.5)^g)

Values are presented as median (interquartile range). sAxl, soluble Axl; AFP, α-fetoprotein; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; LC, liver cirrhosis; HBV, hepatitis B virus infection; HC, healthy controls; BCLC, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer.

^a) p < 0.05 (vs. HCC),

^b) p < 0.05 (vs. LC),

^c) p > 0.05 (vs. HBV),

^d) p < 0.05 (vs. HBV),

^e) p > 0.05 (vs. AFP-positive HCC),

^f) p < 0.05 (vs. AFPpositive HCC),

^g) p > 0.05 (vs. BCLC(0+A)).

Table 3.

Diagnostic value of sAxl in detecting HCC

Group	AUC (95% CI)	Sensiticity (%)	Specificity (%)	Youden’s index (%)	Cut-off (pg/mL)
HCC vs. non-HCC
sAxl	0.888 (0.852-0.924)	95.0	73.3	68.3	1,202
AFP	0.765 (0.699-0.830)	67.5	70.0	37.5	15,600
sAxl+AFP	0.914 (0.884-0.945)	96.3	72.5	68.8	-
HCC vs. CLD
sAxl	0.840	93.8	61.9	55.6	1,243
AFP	0.703	66.3	61.9	28.1	21,480
sAxl+AFP	0.875	83.8	73.8	57.5	-
Early HCC vs. non-HCC
sAxl	0.881 (0.831-0.931)	94.1	74.2	67.5	1,202
AFP	0.705 (0.598-0.812)	58.8	73.3	33.3	19,870
sAxl+AFP	0.899 (0.853-0.945)	76.5	86.7	63.1	-
Early HCC vs. CLD
sAxl	0.834 (0.770-0.898)	91.2	64.4	55.6	1,281
AFP	0.636 (0.518-0.755)	58.8	61.3	20.1	19,870
sAxl+AFP	-	100	82.5	-	-
AFP-negative HCC vs. non-HCC
sAxl	0.898 (0.854-0.942)	84.6	76.3	60.9	1,301
AFP-negative HCC vs. CLD
sAxl	0.849 (0.785-0.912)	73.1	74.4	47.5	1,555

sAxl, soluble Axl; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; AUC, area under the receiver operating characteristic; CI, confidence interval; AFP, α-fetoprotein; CLD, chronic liver disease, livercirrhosis+hepatitis B virus infection; non-HCC, livercirrhosis+hepatitis B virus infection+healthy controls.

Table 4.

Assessment of diagnostic value in HCC

Group	p (AUC)	p (Se)	p (Sp)
HCC vs. non-HCC
sAxl vs. AFP	0.001	< 0.001	0.699^a)
AFP vs. sAxl+AFP	< 0.001	< 0.001	-
sAxl vs. sAxl+AFP	< 0.001	> 0.99	-
HCC vs. CLD
sAxl vs. AFP	0.003	< 0.001	> 0.99
AFP vs. sAxl+AFP	< 0.001	0.011	0.023^b)
sAxl vs. sAxl+AFP	0.002	0.045	0.023^b)
Early HCC vs. non-HCC
sAxl vs. AFP	0.005	0.001	0.836^b)
AFP vs. sAxl+AFP	< 0.001	0.120	0.001
sAxl vs. sAxl+AFP	0.059^b)	0.040	< 0.001
Early HCC vs. CLD
sAxl vs. AFP	0.006	0.002	0.563^b)
AFP vs. sAxl+AFP	-	< 0.001	< 0.001
sAxl vs. sAxl+AFP	-	0.238^b)	< 0.001

HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; AUC, area under the receiver operating characteristic; Se, sensitivity; Sp, specificity; non-HCC, livercirrhosis+hepatitis B virus infection+healthy controls; sAxl, soluble Axl; AFP, α-fetoprotein; CLD, chronic liver disease, livercirrhosis+hepatitis B virus infection.

^a) p > 0.05,

^b) p > 0.017.

REFERENCES

1. Zheng RS, Sun KX, Zhang SW, Zeng HM, Zou XN, Chen R, et al. Report of cancer epidemiology in China, 2015. Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi. 2019;41:19–28. PubMed
2. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:394–424. Article PubMed
3. Abraham JA, Golubnitschaja O. Time for paradigm change in management of hepatocellular carcinoma: is a personalized approach on the horizon? Per Med. 2016;13:455–67. Article PubMed
4. Tsuchiya N, Sawada Y, Endo I, Saito K, Uemura Y, Nakatsura T. Biomarkers for the early diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21:10573–83. Article PubMed PMC
5. Daniele B, Bencivenga A, Megna AS, Tinessa V. Alpha-fetoprotein and ultrasonography screening for hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology. 2004;127(5 Suppl 1):S108–12. Article PubMed
6. Chen H, Chen S, Li S, Chen Z, Zhu X, Dai M, et al. Combining des-gamma-carboxyprothrombin and alpha-fetoprotein for hepatocellular carcinoma diagnosing: an update meta-analysis and validation study. Oncotarget. 2017;8:90390–401. Article PubMed PMC
7. Zhao Y, Gao Q, Pei L, Wang C, Jin L, Liao F. Current status and future prospects of biomarkers in the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. Int J Biol Markers. 2017;32:e361–9. Article PubMed
8. Kim SU, Park JH, Kim HS, Lee JM, Lee HG, Kim H, et al. Serum Dickkopf-1 as a biomarker for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. Yonsei Med J. 2015;56:1296–306. Article PubMed PMC
9. Lim TS, Kim DY, Han KH, Kim HS, Shin SH, Jung KS, et al. Combined use of AFP, PIVKA-II, and AFP-L3 as tumor markers enhances diagnostic accuracy for hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic patients. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2016;51:344–53. Article PubMed
10. Han J, Tian R, Yong B, Luo C, Tan P, Shen J, et al. Gas6/Axl mediates tumor cell apoptosis, migration and invasion and predicts the clinical outcome of osteosarcoma patients. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2013;435:493–500. Article PubMed
11. Wu X, Ma W, Zhou Q, Yan H, Lim ZF, Huang M, et al. AXLGAS6 expression can predict for adverse prognosis in non-small cell lung cancer with brain metastases. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2017;143:1947–57. Article PubMed PMC PDF
12. Reichl P, Dengler M, van Zijl F, Huber H, Fuhrlinger G, Reichel C, et al. Axl activates autocrine transforming growth factor-beta signaling in hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology. 2015;61:930–41. Article PubMed PMC
13. Xu J, Jia L, Ma H, Li Y, Ma Z, Zhao Y. Axl gene knockdown inhibits the metastasis properties of hepatocellular carcinoma via PI3K/Akt-PAK1 signal pathway. Tumour Biol. 2014;35:3809–17. Article PubMed PDF
14. Liu J, Wang K, Yan Z, Xia Y, Li J, Shi L, et al. Axl expression stratifies patients with poor prognosis after hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0154767Article PubMed PMC
15. Ekman C, Stenhoff J, Dahlback B. Gas6 is complexed to the soluble tyrosine kinase receptor Axl in human blood. J Thromb Haemost. 2010;8:838–44. Article PubMed
16. Dengler M, Huber H, Muller CJ, Zellmer A, Rauch P, Mikulits W. Accurate determination of soluble Axl by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Assay Drug Dev Technol. 2016;14:543–50. Article PubMed
17. Reichl P, Fang M, Starlinger P, Staufer K, Nenutil R, Muller P, et al. Multicenter analysis of soluble Axl reveals diagnostic value for very early stage hepatocellular carcinoma. Int J Cancer. 2015;137:385–94. Article PubMed PMC
18. Dengler M, Staufer K, Huber H, Stauber R, Bantel H, Weiss KH, et al. Soluble Axl is an accurate biomarker of cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma development: results from a large scale multicenter analysis. Oncotarget. 2017;8:46234–48. Article PubMed PMC
19. Reichl P, Mikulits W. Accuracy of novel diagnostic biomarkers for hepatocellular carcinoma: an update for clinicians (review). Oncol Rep. 2016;36:613–25. Article PubMed PMC
20. Guo J, Pan LH, Li YX, Yang XD, Li LQ, Zhang CY, et al. Efficacy of triclosan-coated sutures for reducing risk of surgical site infection in adults: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. J Surg Res. 2016;201:105–17. Article PubMed
21. Wang YT, Chen TY, Zhu J, Jiao YC, Qu CF. Primary prevention by hepatitis B vaccine on liver cancer in high incidence area of China. Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2018;52:402–8. PubMed
22. Kudo M. Evidence and consensus on the management of hepatocellular carcinoma: update 2015. Oncology. 2015;89 Suppl 2:1–3. Article PubMed
23. Weinmann A, Koch S, Sprinzl M, Kloeckner R, Schulze-Bergkamen H, Duber C, et al. Survival analysis of proposed BCLC-B subgroups in hepatocellular carcinoma patients. Liver Int. 2015;35:591–600. Article PubMed
24. Li J, Cheng ZJ, Liu Y, Yan ZL, Wang K, Wu D, et al. Serum thioredoxin is a diagnostic marker for hepatocellular carcinoma. Oncotarget. 2015;6:9551–63. Article PubMed PMC
25. Shen Q, Fan J, Yang XR, Tan Y, Zhao W, Xu Y, et al. Serum DKK1 as a protein biomarker for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: a large-scale, multicentre study. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:817–26. Article PubMed
26. Staufer K, Dengler M, Huber H, Marculescu R, Stauber R, Lackner C, et al. The non-invasive serum biomarker soluble Axl accurately detects advanced liver fibrosis and cirrhosis. Cell Death Dis. 2017;8:e3135Article PubMed PMC PDF
27. Smirne C, Rigamonti C, De Benedittis C, Sainaghi PP, Bellan M, Burlone ME, et al. Gas6/TAM signaling components as novel biomarkers of liver fibrosis. Dis Markers. 2019;2019:2304931.Article PubMed PMC PDF
28. Tutusaus A, de Gregorio E, Cucarull B, Cristobal H, Areste C, Graupera I, et al. A functional role of GAS6/TAM in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis progression implicates AXL as therapeutic target. Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;9:349–68. Article PubMed PMC
29. Xu MZ, Chan SW, Liu AM, Wong KF, Fan ST, Chen J, et al. AXL receptor kinase is a mediator of YAP-dependent oncogenic functions in hepatocellular carcinoma. Oncogene. 2011;30:1229–40. Article PubMed PDF
30. Paccez JD, Vogelsang M, Parker MI, Zerbini LF. The receptor tyrosine kinase Axl in cancer: biological functions and therapeutic implications. Int J Cancer. 2014;134:1024–33. Article PubMed

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Biomarker in Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Pooja Basthi Mohan, Rajiv Lochan, Shiran Shetty
Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology.2024; 15(S2): 261. CrossRef
From MASH to HCC: the role of Gas6/TAM receptors
Daria Apostolo, Luciana L. Ferreira, Federica Vincenzi, Nicole Vercellino, Rosalba Minisini, Federico Latini, Barbara Ferrari, Michela E. Burlone, Mario Pirisi, Mattia Bellan
Frontiers in Immunology.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
GAS6/TAM Axis as Therapeutic Target in Liver Diseases
Anna Tutusaus, Albert Morales, Pablo García de Frutos, Montserrat Marí
Seminars in Liver Disease.2024; 44(01): 099. CrossRef
Dynamic changes in immune cell populations by AXL kinase targeting diminish liver inflammation and fibrosis in experimental MASH
Sturla Magnus Grøndal, Anna Tutusaus, Loreto Boix, Maria Reig, Magnus Blø, Linn Hodneland, Gro Gausdal, Akil Jackson, Pablo Garcia de Frutos, James Bradley Lorens, Albert Morales, Montserrat Marí
Frontiers in Immunology.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Evaluating soluble Axl as a biomarker for glioblastoma: A pilot study
Daniel Raymond, Melanie Fukui, Samuel Zwernik, Amin Kassam, Richard Rovin, Parvez Akhtar, Salvatore V. Pizzo
PLOS ONE.2024; 19(7): e0301739. CrossRef
A meta-analysis and of clinical values of 11 blood biomarkers, such as AFP, DCP, and GP73 for diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma
Bing-yao Pang, Yan Leng, Xiaoli Wang, Yi-qiang Wang, Li-hong Jiang
Annals of Medicine.2023; 55(1): 42. CrossRef
Updating the Clinical Application of Blood Biomarkers and Their Algorithms in the Diagnosis and Surveillance of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Critical Review
Endrit Shahini, Giuseppe Pasculli, Antonio Giovanni Solimando, Claudio Tiribelli, Raffaele Cozzolongo, Gianluigi Giannelli
International Journal of Molecular Sciences.2023; 24(5): 4286. CrossRef
AXL in cancer: a modulator of drug resistance and therapeutic target
Yaoxiang Tang, Hongjing Zang, Qiuyuan Wen, Songqing Fan
Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Emerging biomolecules for practical theranostics of liver hepatocellular carcinoma
Miner Hu, Xiaojun Xia, Lichao Chen, Yunpeng Jin, Zhenhua Hu, Shudong Xia, Xudong Yao
Annals of Hepatology.2023; 28(6): 101137. CrossRef
Gas6 in chronic liver disease—a novel blood-based biomarker for liver fibrosis
Katharina Staufer, Heidemarie Huber, Jasmin Zessner-Spitzenberg, Rudolf Stauber, Armin Finkenstedt, Heike Bantel, Thomas S. Weiss, Markus Huber, Patrick Starlinger, Thomas Gruenberger, Thomas Reiberger, Susanne Sebens, Gail McIntyre, Ray Tabibiazar, Amato
Cell Death Discovery.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
TAM Receptors in the Pathophysiology of Liver Disease
Emilio Flint, Evangelos Triantafyllou, Christine Bernsmeier
Livers.2022; 2(1): 15. CrossRef
Prognostic Value of Computed Tomography Texture Features in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma Following Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy
Yufeng Zhu, Jie He, Xingcai Luo
Iranian Journal of Radiology.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Abdominal ultrasound and alpha-foetoprotein for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease
Agostino Colli, Tin Nadarevic, Damir Miletic, Vanja Giljaca, Mirella Fraquelli, Davor Štimac, Giovanni Casazza
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
Accelerating AXL targeting for TNBC therapy
Lohit Khera, Sima Lev
The International Journal of Biochemistry & Cell Biology.2021; 139: 106057. CrossRef
Hepatocellular Carcinoma in 2021: An Exhaustive Update
Cyriac A Philips, Sasidharan Rajesh, Dinu C Nair, Rizwan Ahamed, Jinsha K Abduljaleel, Philip Augustine
Cureus.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
AXL Knock-Out in SNU475 Hepatocellular Carcinoma Cells Provides Evidence for Lethal Effect Associated with G2 Arrest and Polyploidization
Tugce Batur, Ayse Argundogan, Umur Keles, Zeynep Mutlu, Hani Alotaibi, Serif Senturk, Mehmet Ozturk
International Journal of Molecular Sciences.2021; 22(24): 13247. CrossRef
New Blood Biomarkers for the Diagnosis of AFP-Negative Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Ting Wang, Kun-He Zhang
Frontiers in Oncology.2020;[Epub] CrossRef

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Soluble Axl Is a Novel Diagnostic Biomarker of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Chinese Patients with Chronic Hepatitis B Virus Infection

Cancer Res Treat. 2020;52(3):789-797. Published online March 5, 2020

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2019.749

XML Download

Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
NOTES
REFERENCES

Soluble Axl Is a Novel Diagnostic Biomarker of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Chinese Patients with Chronic Hepatitis B Virus Infection

Fig. 1. Soluble Axl (sAxl) concentration in serum in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients. (A) Serum sAxl in HCC group and controls. (B) Serum sAxl in α-fetoprotein (AFP)–positive HCC group and AFP-negative HCC. (C) Serum sAxl in HCC defined in Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stages with 0+A, B, C, D. PLC, primary liver cancer; LC, liver cirrhosis; HBV, hepatitis B virus; HC, healthy control.

Fig. 2. α-Fetoprotein (AFP) concentration in serum in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients. (A) Serum AFP in HCC group and controls. (B) Serum AFP in AFP-positive HCC group and AFP-negative HCC. (C) Serum AFP in HCC defined in Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stages with 0+A, B, C, D. PLC, primary liver cancer; LC, liver cirrhosis; HBV, hepatitis B virus; HC, healthy control.

Fig. 3. Diagnostic performance of soluble Axl (sAxl) and α-fetoprotein (AFP) in diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. (A) ROC curve of sAxl in all HCC versus non-HCC. (B) ROC curve of sAxl in all HCC versus chronic liver disease (CLD). (C) ROC curve of sAxl in early HCC versus non-HCC. (D) ROC curve of sAxl in early HCC versus CLD. (E) ROC curve of sAxl in AFP-negative HCC versus non-HCC. (F) ROC curve of sAxl in AFP-negative HCC versus CLD. LC, liver cirrhosis; HBV, hepatitis B virus; HC, healthy control.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Soluble Axl Is a Novel Diagnostic Biomarker of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Chinese Patients with Chronic Hepatitis B Virus Infection

Clinical characteristic	HCC	LC	HBV	HC
No. of patients	80	80	80	80
Sex (male/female)	57/23	62/18	63/17	55/25
Age, mean±SD (yr)	50.7±9.1	49.0±11.9	49.6±9.7	51.6±9.7
BCLC stage (0/A/B/C/D)	1/33/14/28/4	-	-	-
AFP (≤ 15 ng/mL/> 15 ng/mL)	26/54	39/41	48/52	80/0
HBV status (positive/negative)	80/0	80/0	80/0	0/80

Group	No.	sAxl (pg/mL)	AFP (ng/mL)
HCC	80	2,020 (1,546-2,526)	162.3 (6.4-3,514.5)
LC	80	1,505 (1,004-1,911)^a)	16.7 (3.5-79.7)^a)
HBV	80	489 (296-887)^a),b)	7.0 (3.2-124.6)^a),b)
HC	80	678 (469-893)^a),b),c)	2.6 (2.0-4.2)^a),b),d)
AFP-positive HCC	54	2,004 (1,554-2,469)	627.6 (152.5-9,488.0)
AFP-negative HCC	26	2,100 (1,442-2,717)^e)	3.9 (3.0-6.4)^f)
BCLC (0+A)	34	1,984 (1,532-2,511)^g)	91.1 (4.0-613.2)^g)
BCLC (B)	14	2,060 (1,399-2,724)^g)	682.4 (68.0-8,446.3)^g)
BCLC (C)	28	1,940 (1,546-2,335)^g)	229.0 (6.0-9,620.0)^g)
BCLC (D)	4	2,524 (1,784-3,817)^g)	852.5 (40.9-4,533.5)^g)

Group	AUC (95% CI)	Sensiticity (%)	Specificity (%)	Youden’s index (%)	Cut-off (pg/mL)
HCC vs. non-HCC
sAxl	0.888 (0.852-0.924)	95.0	73.3	68.3	1,202
AFP	0.765 (0.699-0.830)	67.5	70.0	37.5	15,600
sAxl+AFP	0.914 (0.884-0.945)	96.3	72.5	68.8	-
HCC vs. CLD
sAxl	0.840	93.8	61.9	55.6	1,243
AFP	0.703	66.3	61.9	28.1	21,480
sAxl+AFP	0.875	83.8	73.8	57.5	-
Early HCC vs. non-HCC
sAxl	0.881 (0.831-0.931)	94.1	74.2	67.5	1,202
AFP	0.705 (0.598-0.812)	58.8	73.3	33.3	19,870
sAxl+AFP	0.899 (0.853-0.945)	76.5	86.7	63.1	-
Early HCC vs. CLD
sAxl	0.834 (0.770-0.898)	91.2	64.4	55.6	1,281
AFP	0.636 (0.518-0.755)	58.8	61.3	20.1	19,870
sAxl+AFP	-	100	82.5	-	-
AFP-negative HCC vs. non-HCC
sAxl	0.898 (0.854-0.942)	84.6	76.3	60.9	1,301
AFP-negative HCC vs. CLD
sAxl	0.849 (0.785-0.912)	73.1	74.4	47.5	1,555

Group	p (AUC)	p (Se)	p (Sp)
HCC vs. non-HCC
sAxl vs. AFP	0.001	< 0.001	0.699^a)
AFP vs. sAxl+AFP	< 0.001	< 0.001	-
sAxl vs. sAxl+AFP	< 0.001	> 0.99	-
HCC vs. CLD
sAxl vs. AFP	0.003	< 0.001	> 0.99
AFP vs. sAxl+AFP	< 0.001	0.011	0.023^b)
sAxl vs. sAxl+AFP	0.002	0.045	0.023^b)
Early HCC vs. non-HCC
sAxl vs. AFP	0.005	0.001	0.836^b)
AFP vs. sAxl+AFP	< 0.001	0.120	0.001
sAxl vs. sAxl+AFP	0.059^b)	0.040	< 0.001
Early HCC vs. CLD
sAxl vs. AFP	0.006	0.002	0.563^b)
AFP vs. sAxl+AFP	-	< 0.001	< 0.001
sAxl vs. sAxl+AFP	-	0.238^b)	< 0.001

Table 1. Demographic and clinical characteristics of the study participants

HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; LC, liver cirrhosis; HBV, hepatitis B virus infection; HC, healthy controls; SD, standard deviation; BCLC, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer; AFP, α-fetoprotein.

Table 2. sAxl and AFP levels of the study population

p < 0.05 (vs. HCC),

p < 0.05 (vs. LC),

p > 0.05 (vs. HBV),

p < 0.05 (vs. HBV),

p > 0.05 (vs. AFP-positive HCC),

p < 0.05 (vs. AFPpositive HCC),

p > 0.05 (vs. BCLC(0+A)).

Table 3. Diagnostic value of sAxl in detecting HCC

Table 4. Assessment of diagnostic value in HCC

p > 0.05,

p > 0.017.