Wiener Medizinische Wochenschrift

, Volume 157, Issue 15–16, pp 375–380

Klinische Relevanz von Biomarkern bei der Skelettmetastasierung von Malignomen

Themenschwerpunkt

Zusammenfassung

Biomarker, als biochemische Substanzen des Kollagenstoffwechsels, fallen beim Knochenumbau an und können als Parameter des Knochenmetabolismus sowohl im Serum, als auch im Harn bestimmt werden. Diese An- und Abbauprodukte des Knochens werden bereits zur Bestimmung der Knochenformation und -resorption bei der Osteoporose genutzt. Knochenmetastasen weisen ebenfalls einen erhöhten Knochenumbau auf. Bisher werden die ossäre Metastasierung und der Progress der Ausbreitung maligner Zellen in den Knochen lediglich mit bildgebenden Verfahren, wie konventionellem Röntgen, Knochenszintigraphie oder Magnetresonanztomographie, in einem fortgeschrittenen Stadium der Erkrankung diagnostiziert. Biomarker könnten zukünftig frühzeitig, kostengünstig Skelettmetastasen, deren Verlauf und deren Ansprechen auf Therapiemaßnahmen erfassen. Derzeit ist der klinische Nutzen noch unzureichend dokumentiert und die Bestimmung ineffizient. Durch die Optimierung der Bestimmung von Knochenumbaumarkern und zusätzlichen neuen Serumparametern des Knochenmetabolismus, wie OPG, RANKL, könnten in absehbarer Zeit neue diagnostische und prognostische Möglichkeiten zur Verfügung stehen.

Schlüsselwörter

Malignom Knochenmetastasen Knochenmetabolismus Biomarker 

Clinical relevance of biomarkers in cancer related bone disease

Summary

Biomarkers as biochemical substances of collagen metabolism are produced during bone turnover and can be determined as parameters of bone metabolism not only in serum, but also in urine. These growth and decomposition products of the bone are already used to determine bone metabolism in osteoporosis and to prove efficacy of antiresorptive therapy. Metastases of the bone likewise show a higher rate of bone turnover. Nowadays detection of neoplastic bone lesions and progression of their spread are performed with x-rays, radionucleoide bone imaging and magnetic resonance imaging. In the future, biomarkers might improve early detection of bone lesions and follow-up of skeletal metastases. At present, the clinical use is documented insufficiently. In the foreseeable future the determination of the bone turnover markers and additional serum parameters of bone metabolism such as OPG, RANKL might be available for early diagnosis and follow-up in patients with bone metastatic diseases.

Keywords

Cancer Bone metastases Bone turnover Bone markers 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Referenzen

  1. Roodmann D (2004) Mechanisms of bone metastasis. N Engl J Med 350: 1655–1664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. DE S, Chen J, Narizhneva NV, Heston W, Brainard J, Sage EH, Byzova TV (2003) Molecular pathway for cancer metastasis to bone. J Biol Chem 278: 39044–39050PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Guise TA (2000) Molecular mechanism of osteolytic bone metastases. Cancer 88: 2892–2898PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Kudlacek S, Biegelmayer C, Wolosczcuk W, Beke D, Pietschmann P (2006) Bone markers as predictors of bone turnover in healthy females and males. J Bone Miner Res 21(Suppl 1): 234Google Scholar
  5. Paget S (1889) The distribution of secondary growths in cancer of the breast. Lancet 1: 571–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ebeling PR (2001) Potential candidates for bone turnover markers – N-telopeptide cross-links of type I collagen (NTX). In: Eastell R et al (eds) Bone Markers Biochemical and Clinical Prespectives, vol 1. Matin Dunitz Ltd, United Kingdom, pp 27–38Google Scholar
  7. Fontana A, Garnero P, Delmas PD (2000) Markers of bone turnover in diagnosis and monitoring of bone metastases. In: Body JJ Tumor Bone Diseases And Osteoporosis In Cancer Patients, vol 1. Marcel Dekker, New York Basel, pp 213–226Google Scholar
  8. Woitge HE, Pecherstorfer M, Li Y, Keck AV, Horn E, Ziegler R, Seibel MJ (1999) Novel serum markers of bone resorption: clinical assessment and comparison with established urinary indices. J Bone Miner Res 14: 792–801PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Learly ET (2001) C-Telopeptides. In: Eastell R et al (eds) Bone Markers Biochemical and Clinical Prespectives, vol 1. Matin Dunitz Ltd, United Kingdom, pp 39–48Google Scholar
  10. Schoenberger J, Rozeboom S, Wirthgen-Beyer E, Eilles C (2004) Evaluation of the clinical value of bone metabolic parameters for the screening of osseous metastases compared to bone scintigraphy. BMC Nucl Med 4: 3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Pecherstorfer M, Zimmer-Roth I, Schilling T, Woitge HW, Schmidt H, Baumgertner G, Thiebaud D, Ludwig H, Seibel MJ (1995) The diagnostic value of urinary pyridinium cross-links of collagen, serum total alkaline phosphatase, and urinary calcium excretion in neoplastic bone disease. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 80: 97–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Demers LM, Costa L, Lipton A (2003) Biochemical markers and skeletal metastases. Clin Orthop Relat Res 415: 138–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Costa L, Demers LM, Gouveia-Oliveira A, Schaller J, Costa EB, Moura MC, Lipton A (2002) Prospective evaluation of the peptide–bound collagen type I cross-links N-telopeptide and C-telopeptide in predicting bone metastases status. J Clin Oncol 20: 850–856PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Body JJ, Dumon JC, Gineyts E, Delmas PD (1997) Markers of bone resorption in breast cancer-induced osteolysis before and after bisphosphonates. Br J Cancer 75: 408–412PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Demers LM, Costa L, Lipton A (2000) Biochemical markers and skeletal metastases. Cancer 88: 2919–2926PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Vinholes J, Guo CY, Purohit OP, Eastell R, Coleman RE (1996) Metabolic effects of pamidronate in patients with metastatic bone disease. Br J Cancer 73: 1089–1095PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Lipton A, Demers L, Curley E, Chinchilli V, Gaydos L, Hortobagyi G, Clemens D, Costa L, Seaman J, Knight R (1998) Markers of bone resorption in patients treated with pamidronate. Eur J Cancer 34: 2021–2026PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Brown JE, Thomson CS, Ellis SP, Gutcher SA, Purohit OP, Coleman RE (2003) Bone resorption predicts for skeletal complication in metastatic bone disease. Br J Cancer 89: 2031–2037PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ali SM, Demers LM, Leitzel K, Harvey HA, Clemens D, Mallinak N, Engle L, Chinchilli V, Costa L, Brady C, Seaman J, Lipton A (2004) Basline serum NTx levels are prognostic in metastatic breast cancer patients with bone – only metastasis. Ann Oncol 15: 455–459PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Brown JE, Cook RJ, Major P, Lipton A, Saad F, Smith M, Lee KA, Zheng M, Hei YJ, Coleman RE (2005) Bone turnover markers as predictors of skeletal complications in prostate cancer, lung cancer and other solid tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst 97: 59–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Coleman RE, Major P, Lipton A, Brown JE, Lee KA, Smith M, Saad F, Zheng M, Hei YJ, Seaman J, Cook R (2005) Predictive value of bone resorption and formation markers in cancer patients with bone metastases receiving the bisphosphonate zoledronic acid. J Clin Oncol 23: 4925–4935PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Diel IJ, Solomayer EF, Seibel MJ, Pfeilschifter J, Maisenbacher H, Gollan M, Pecherstorfer M, Conradi Ch, Kehr G, Boehm E, Armbruster FP, Bastert G (1999) Serum Bone Sialoprotein in patients with primary breast cancer is a prognostic marker for subsequent bone metastasis. Clin Cancer Res 5: 3914–3919PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Smith M (2006) Markers of bone metabolism in prostate cancer. Cancer Treat Rev 32: 23–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Trepo E, Viniou N, de la Fuente J, Meletis J, Voskaridou E, Karkantaris C, Vaipuolos G, Palermos J, Yataganas X, Goldman JM, Rahemtulla A (2003) Pamidronate is superior to ibandronate in decreasing bone resorption, interlukin-6 and beta 2-microglubulin in multiple myeloma. Eur J Heamatol 70: 34–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. The BISMARK trial. Cost effective use of bisphosphonates in metastatic bone disease-a comparison of bone marker directed zoledronic acid therapy to a standard schedule. National Cancer Research Network Trials portfolio Website 2005; Available from: http://www.ncn.org.uk/portfolio/data.asp?ID01737
  26. Hofbauer LC, Neubauer A, Heufelder A (2001) Receptor activator on nuclear –kB ligand and osteoprotegerin. Cancer 92: 460–470PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Corey E, Brown LG, Kiefer J, Quinn JE, Pitts TE, Blair J, Vessella RL (2005) Osteoprotegerin in prostate cancer bone metastasis. Cancer Res 65: 1710–1718PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Body JJ, Greipp P, Coleman RE, Facon T, Geurs F, Fermand JP, Harousseau JL, Lipton A, Mariette X, Williams CD, Nakanishi A, Holloway D, Martin SW, Dunstan CR, Bekker PJ (2003) A phase I study of AMGN-0007. a recombinant osteoprotegerin construct, in patients with multiple myeloma or breast carcinoma related bone metastases. Cancer 97: 887–893PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Body JJ, Facon T, Coleman R, Lipton A, Geurs F, Fan M, Holoway D, Peterson M, Bekker PJ (2006) A study of the biological receptor activator of nuclear factor-kB ligand inhibitor, Denosumab, in patients with multiple myeloma or bone metastases from breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 12: 1221–1228PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dora Beke
    • 1
  • Stefan Kudlacek
    • 1
    • 2
  • Johannes G. Meran
    • 1
  1. 1.Medizinische AbteilungKrankenhaus der Barmherzigen Brüder WienWienAustria
  2. 2.Ludwig Boltzmann Institut für AltersforschungWienAustria

Personalised recommendations