In Pursuit of Novel Markers - Unraveling the Potential of miR-106, CEA and CA 19-9 in Gastric Adenocarcinoma Diagnosis and Staging

Q: Which biomarkers were evaluated for gastric adenocarcinoma diagnosis and staging?

The study assessed miR-106 as a novel marker and compared it with classical markers CEA and CA 19-9.

Q: What did logistic regression show about marker levels?

Elevated levels of miR-106, CEA, and CA 19-9 were predictive of a positive histopathological exam, with reported odds ratios for each marker.

Q: Which marker performed best in ROC analysis for diagnosis?

CA 19-9 was identified as the optimal predictor for gastric adenocarcinoma diagnosis when accounting for age and gender, with an AUC of 0.936 (p < 0.001).

Sep 21, 2026

Uploaded by Liam

Gastric cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, and it is frequently detected at advanced stages with poor prognosis. To meet the need for accurate tumoral markers, a study compared classical biomarkers CEA and CA 19-9 with the novel marker miR-106. Marker levels showed distinct dynamics versus non-cancer groups, while differences across disease stages were not observed. Logistic regression indicated higher miR-106, CEA, and CA 19-9 predicted positive histopathology, and ROC analysis identified CA 19-9 as the best diagnostic predictor (AUC 0.936, p < 0.001).

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages13

Reading Time33 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Gastric cancer burden and need for early detection

Tumor and endoscopic markers for diagnosis

Rationale for investigating molecular biomarkers

Article In Pursuit of Novel Markers: Unraveling the Potential of miR-106, CEA and CA 19-9 in Gastric Adenocarcinoma Diagnosis and Staging Adrian Boicean 1, Ioana Boeras 2,3, *, Sabrina Birsan 1, *, Cristian Ichim 1,†, Samuel Bogdan Todor 1,†, Danusia Maria Onisor 4, Olga Brusnic 4, Ciprian Bacila 1, Horatiu Dura 1, Corina Roman-Filip 1, Maria Livia Ognean 1, Ciprian Tanasescu 1, Adrian Hasegan 1, Dan Bratu 1, Corina Porr 5, Iulian Roman-Filip 6, Bogdan Neamtu 7 and Sorin Radu Fleaca 1 Citation: Boicean, A.; Boeras, I.; Birsan, S.; Ichim, C.; Todor, S.B.; Onisor, D.M.; Brusnic, O.; Bacila, C.; Dura, H.; Roman-Filip, C.; et al. In Pursuit of Novel Markers: Unraveling the Potential of miR-106, CEA and CA 19-9 in Gastric Adenocarcinoma Diagnosis and Staging. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25, 7898. [https://doi.org/](https://doi.org/)[ ](https://doi.org/)[10.3390/ijms25147898](10.3390/ijms25147898) Academic Editor: Hidekazu Suzuki Received: 30 May 2024 Revised: 10 July 2024 Accepted: 12 July 2024 Published: 19 July 2024 Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ([https://](https://)[ ](https://)[creativecommons.org/licenses/by/](creativecommons.org/licenses/by/)[ ](creativecommons.org/licenses/by/)[4.0/](4.0/)) . 1 Faculty of Medicine, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, 550169 Sibiu, Romania; [adrian.boicean@ulbsibiu.ro](adrian.boicean@ulbsibiu.ro) (A.B.); [cristian.ichim@ulbsibiu.ro](cristian.ichim@ulbsibiu.ro) (C.I.); [ciprian.bacila@ulbsibiu.ro](ciprian.bacila@ulbsibiu.ro) (C.B.); [horatiu.dura@ulbsibiu.ro](horatiu.dura@ulbsibiu.ro) (H.D.); corina.roman@ulbsibiu.ro (C.R.-F.); [maria.ognean@ulbsibiu.ro](maria.ognean@ulbsibiu.ro) (M.L.O.); [ciprian.tanasescu@ulbsibiu.ro](ciprian.tanasescu@ulbsibiu.ro) (C.T.); [adrian.hasegan@ulbsibiu.ro](adrian.hasegan@ulbsibiu.ro) (A.H.); [dan.bratu@ulbsibiu.ro](dan.bratu@ulbsibiu.ro) (D.B.); [radu.fleaca@ulbsibiu.ro](radu.fleaca@ulbsibiu.ro) (S.R.F.) 2 Molecular Biology Laboratory of the Applied Ecology Research Center, Faculty of Sciences, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, 550012 Sibiu, Romania 3 Faculty of Social Sciences, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, 550012 Sibiu, Romania 4 Department of Gastroenterology, University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Targu Mures, 540142 Târgu Mures, Romania; [halalisan5@yahoo.com](halalisan5@yahoo.com) (D.M.O.); [brusnic_olga@yahoo.com](brusnic_olga@yahoo.com) (O.B.) 5 County Clinical Emergency Hospital of Sibiu, 550245 Sibiu, Romania 6 Department of Neurology,“George Emil Palade” University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Sciences and Technology, 540136 Targu Mures, Romania 7 Pediatric Research Department, Pediatric Clinical Hospital Sibiu, 550166 Sibiu, Romania; [bogdan.neamtu@ulbsibiu.ro](bogdan.neamtu@ulbsibiu.ro) * Correspondence: [ioana.boeras@ulbsibiu.ro](ioana.boeras@ulbsibiu.ro) (I.B.); [sabrinaandreea.marinca@ulbsibiu.ro](sabrinaandreea.marinca@ulbsibiu.ro) (S.B.)† These authors contributed equally to this work. Abstract: Gastric cancer stands as the fourth leading cause of cancer-related deaths globally, primarily comprising adenocarcinomas, categorized by anatomic location and histologic type. Often diagnosed at advanced stages, gastric cancer prognosis remains poor. To address the critical need for accurate tumoral markers for gastric cancer diagnosis, we conducted a study to assess classical markers like CEA and CA-19-9 alongside the novel marker miR-106 . Our investigation revealed distinct dynamics of these markers compared to non-cancerous groups, although no disparities were observed across different disease stages. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses demonstrated that elevated levels of miR-106, CEA and CA 19-9 were predictive of a positive histopathological exam, with the respective odds ratios of 12.032 (95%

FAQs

Which biomarkers were evaluated for gastric adenocarcinoma diagnosis and staging?

The study assessed miR-106 as a novel marker and compared it with classical markers CEA and CA 19-9.

What did logistic regression show about marker levels?

Elevated levels of miR-106, CEA, and CA 19-9 were predictive of a positive histopathological exam, with reported odds ratios for each marker.

Which marker performed best in ROC analysis for diagnosis?

CA 19-9 was identified as the optimal predictor for gastric adenocarcinoma diagnosis when accounting for age and gender, with an AUC of 0.936 (p < 0.001).

Sep 21, 2026

Uploaded by Liam