Emerging blood-based biomarkers for detection of gastric cancer

Table 2 Autoantibody signatures with diagnostic value for gastric cancer

Biomarker signature description	Technology	Study design	Sample size (GC/controls)	Diagnostic value	Ref.
2 TAAs – p62, Koc	ELISA	GC vs HC	135/82	Sn = 19.3%, Sp = 97.6%, P < 0.01	Zhang et al[62], 2001
3 TSAs - IQGAP3, KRT23 and REG3A	PARSE assay	GC vs HC (age and sex matched)	48/46	Sn = 22.9%, Sp = 100%, P < 0.001	Xu et al[149], 2012
3 TAAs – p16, p53, c-myc	ELISA	GC vs HC	74/82	Sn = 21.6%, Sp = 97.6%; P < 0.001	Looi et al[150], 2006
7 TAAs - p53, C-myc, p16, IMP1, Koc, p62 and Survivin	ELISA	Cardia GC vs HC	88/140	AUC = 0.73, Sn = 64%, Sp = 87%, P < 0.001	Zhou et al[68], 2015
7 TAAs - C-myc, Cyclin B1, IMP1, Koc, P53, p62 and Survivin	ELISA, fixed cut-off	GC vs HC	91/346	Sn = 52.7%, Sp = 89.9%, P < 0.01	Zhang et al[63], 2003
	ELISA, individual cut-off (recursive partitioning)	GC vs HC	91/346	Sn = 98.9%, Sp = 93.1%, P < 0.001	Koziol et al[151], 2003
45 T7 phage-displayed TAA clones (including NY-ESO-1, DDX53, MAGE antigens etc.)	T7 phage displayed TAA microarray	GC vs HC (age and sex matched)	T:100/100	AUC = 0.79, Sn = 59%, Sp = 90%, P < 0.001	Zayakin et al[56], 2013
			V:235/213
		GC vs gastritis	235/100	AUC = 0.64, Sn = 58.7%, Sp = 55%, P < 0.001
		GC vs gastric ulcer	235/54	AUC = 0.76, Sn = 58.7%, Sp = 81.5%, P < 0.001

AUC: Area under the curve; GC: Gastric cancer; HC: Healthy controls; ND: Not determined; Sn: Sensitivity; Sp: Specificity; TAA: Tumor associated antigen; TSA: Tumor specific antigen; T: Training; V: Validation.