Next Article in Journal
Impact of the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Pandemic on Characteristics and Management of Uveal Melanoma in the National Referral Center in Poland
Next Article in Special Issue
Peptide Receptor Radionuclide Therapy versus Capecitabine/Temozolomide for the Treatment of Metastatic Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors
Previous Article in Journal
Reasons for Discordance between 68Ga-PSMA-PET and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Men with Metastatic Prostate Cancer
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Serum β-hCG as a Biomarker in Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors: Rethinking Single-Analyte Approach

by
Paweł Komarnicki
1,*,
Paweł Gut
1,
Maja Cieślewicz
1,
Jan Musiałkiewicz
1,
Adam Maciejewski
1,
Michalina Czupińska
1,
George Mastorakos
2 and
Marek Ruchała
1
1
Department of Endocrinology, Metabolism and Internal Diseases, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Przybyszewskiego 49, 60-355 Poznań, Poland
2
Unit of Endocrinology, Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolism, Aretaieion University Hospital, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 157 72 Athens, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2024, 16(11), 2060; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16112060
Submission received: 24 April 2024 / Revised: 24 May 2024 / Accepted: 28 May 2024 / Published: 29 May 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Radioligand Therapy (RLT) in Neuroendocrine Neoplasms)

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

The lack of biomarkers in neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) represents a critical unmet need. Conventional single analytes lack the required diagnostic accuracy. Multianalyte assays (e.g., NETest) offer improved performance but remain costly and largely unavailable. In our study, serum beta-human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG) shows promise as a biomarker in metastatic pancreatic NETs. β-hCG concentrations strongly correlate with established indicators of aggressive tumor behavior, including progressive disease, per RECIST; greater liver tumor burden; and higher WHO tumor grade. Throughout the study period, β-hCG levels increased consistently, with sharper rises noted in more aggressive tumors. As a widely available and inexpensive assay, serum β-hCG emerges as a useful tool for the evaluation of treatment response and disease monitoring in pancreatic NETs, especially in the transitional period until multianalyte assays become a mainstay in scientific guidelines.

Abstract

Despite recent advances, neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) remain a challenging topic, due to their diversity and the lack of suitable biomarkers. Multianalyte assays and the shift to an omics-based approach improve on the conventional single-analyte strategy, albeit with their own drawbacks. We explored the potential of serum β-hCG as a biomarker for NETs and discussed its role in disease monitoring. We recruited 40 patients with non-functioning pancreatic NETs, all with liver metastases. Serum β-hCG concentrations were measured at 3-month intervals over 48 months. We performed a comparative and a repeated measures analysis of β-hCG depending on WHO grade (G1, G2), liver tumor burden (LTB; below 10%, 10–25%), and RECIST 1.1. (stable disease, progressive disease). Patients with progressive disease (p < 0.001), 10–25% LTB (p < 0.001) and WHO Grade 2 (p < 0.001) displayed higher β-hCG concentrations. Throughout the study, β-hCG concentrations consistently increased across the entire cohort. Delta β-hCG during the study period was greater in patients with 10–25% LTB (p < 0.001), progressive disease (p < 0.001), and G2 (p = 0.003). Serum β-hCG correlates with established indicators of malignancy and disease progression in metastatic NETs, supporting further studies as a monitoring and prognostic biomarker. Despite promising results from novel biomarkers, there is still a place for single-analyte assays in NETs.

1. Introduction

Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are a challenging topic for clinicians and researchers. They often stay undetected for extended periods, resulting in delayed diagnosis. This is attributed to the typically slow growth pattern of NETs and the frequently encountered absence of specific symptoms. Notably, 12–22% of patients are diagnosed with the disease already at metastatic stage, resulting in worse outcomes and compromised quality of life [1]. Early detection and the identification of high-risk groups are crucial for the improvement of patient care. As highlighted by the expert consensus statement, the lack of suitable biomarkers for diagnosis and monitoring remains a critical unmet need in the management of NETs [2].
Various molecules, including chromogranin A (CgA), 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA), N-terminal Prohormone of Brain Natriuretic Peptide (NT-proBNP), and Pancreatic Polypeptide (PP) have been studied as potential biomarkers in NETs [3,4,5]. The conventional monoanalyte-based approach (e.g., the aforementioned use of CgA) entails limited sensitivity and specificity [6,7]. An alternative strategy involves multianalytes, exemplified by the mRNA-based NETest. The NETest offers superior diagnostic parameters. However, it remains costly and largely unavailable—drawbacks typical for novel technologies. These issues are expected to diminish with broader adoption; nevertheless, the search for optimal solutions continues [7,8,9]. Furthermore, recent studies discussed potential prognostic utility of mutations in alpha-thalassemia/mental retardation X-linked chromatin remodeler (ATRX) and death-domain-associated protein (DAXX) genes in metastatic disease in pancreatic NETs. The loss of expression in ATRX/DAXX genes, often co-existing with the presence of Alternate Lengthening of Telomeres (ALT) correlates with more aggressive disease. Furthermore, research suggests the status of ATRX/DAXX and ALT as separate, negative prognostic biomarkers for pancreatic primary location of NETs [10,11].
Navigating the intricacies of biomarker research and its integration into clinical practice can be reminiscent of drinking from a firehose, as aptly described by Dunn et al. [12]. While multiplex assays are considered to be the future, their complexity is followed by a gradual introduction into routine care. In the interim, monoanalytes, despite their own drawbacks, offer a more readily available solution during this transitional period. In the light of these challenges, free beta human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG) emerges as a potential biomarker candidate. Commonly used for the detection of pregnancy and certain malignancies (e.g., choriocarcinoma), it could offer a relatively quick, inexpensive, and widely available measurement.
As per the WHO International Nonproprietary Names (INN) program, proteins with the same amino acid sequence share a common name. For this reason, the term human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) refers to at least five distinct hCG forms, each produced by different cells, with unique structures and various functions [13,14]. These forms include hCG produced by syncytiotrophoblast cells in the placenta, sulphated hCG originating in the pituitary, hyperglycosylated hCG synthesized in cytotrophoblast cells, β-hCG, and hyperglycosylated β-hCG found in neoplasms. hCG and sulphated hCG attach to the hCG/luteinizing hormone (LH) receptor, whereas hyperglycosylated hCG, β-hCG, and hyperglycosylated β-hCG bind the transforming growth factor beta (TGF-β) receptor in an autocrine way [13]. hCG and hyperglycosylated hCG are the key factors during gestation. They are responsible for the implantation, uterine invasion, the creation of hemochorial placentation, and the maintenance of the corpus luteum. Their rising concentrations serve as a biomarker for the detection of pregnancy. Sulphated hCG co-promotes ovulation alongside LH and supplements its actions. By antagonizing the TGF-β receptor, hyperglycosylated hCG, β-hCG, and hyperglycosylated β-hCG block apoptosis and promote cell growth [13]. Hyperglycosylated hCG is involved in the development of choriocarcinoma and germ cell tumors, whereas β-hCG and hyperglycosylated β-hCG have been found in a variety of advanced neoplasms and are seemingly linked with disease progression [15,16,17,18,19,20]. Tissue expression and elevated serum concentrations of β-hCG have also been observed in NETs, with β-hCG considered a marker of poor prognosis. However, existing data are limited, and some findings are contradictory [4,18,21,22,23].
In the pursuit of novel biomarkers, we expect β-hCG to be a useful, widely available tool in monitoring advanced pancreatic NETs. We hypothesize that elevated serum concentrations of β-hCG will correlate positively with known indicators of malignancy, helping to predict disease progression.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Population and Design

This was a prospective study conducted over a 48-month period at the Department of Endocrinology, Metabolism, and Internal Diseases in Poznań, Poland. We recruited 40 patients with histopathological confirmation of non-functioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (panNETs) and confirmation of liver metastases via imaging modalities, including SPECT, PET, CT, and MRI. All patients were treated with long-acting somatostatin analogs (SSA) at the time of the inclusion and throughout the study period (octreotide, Sandostatin LAR 30 mg once every 4 weeks, Novartis, Basel, Switzerland; lanreotide, Somatuline Autogel 120 mg once every 4 weeks, Ipsen, Paris, France).
Exclusion criteria were medical history of other malignancies, neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs), and primary NETs located outside the pancreas; grading other than G1 and G2 in pancreatic NETs; prior or ongoing concomitant cancer treatment, including everolimus, sunitinib, radionuclide treatment, and systemic chemotherapy; pregnancy and breastfeeding; lack of compliance with follow-up visits, SSA regimens or dosing different than stated above.
After recruitment, we evaluated patients based on the following variables: sex, age, disease status according to RECIST 1.1, liver tumor burden (LTB), Ki-67 proliferation index, tumor grading.
We defined LTB as the percentage of liver volume infiltrated by NET metastases. LTB was evaluated based on a contrast-enhanced CT scan of the abdomen performed at the time of the inclusion. Patients were divided into 2 subgroups: (a) those with LTB up to 10%, and (b) those with LTB between 10% and 25%. Consecutive CT scans were used to monitor disease status. Disease status was defined based on RECIST 1.1.and by comparing consecutive imaging to the baseline CT. Patients developing progressive disease (PD) over the study period and patients with stable disease (SD) were distinguished within the study group.
Ki-67 index was based on a histopathological evaluation of tumor tissue upon diagnosis. Grading was divided into G1 and G2 subgroups based on 2022 WHO criteria [24].

2.2. Data Collection and Assays

Data collection was performed during routine control visits at the outpatient clinic of the Department of Endocrinology on the days of SSA injection. Fasting venous blood samples were collected in the morning on the day of the visit, before SSA administration. After collection, samples were transferred to the laboratory unit at the hospital, where plasma was obtained by centrifugation. Plasma samples were analyzed within 6 h from collection. Serum β-hCG was measured every 3 months throughout the study period, acquiring 16 samples from each patient and 640 samples in total. Serum β-HCG concentrations were assessed by Elecsys HCG + β assay (Roche, Rotkreuz, Switzerland). The assay has an analytical measuring range between 0.2–10,000 mIU/mL. There were no results outside of the test’s measuring range in our analysis. The β-HCG reagent kit was used according to the manufacturer’s standardized protocol. Technicians performing the assays were blinded to the study endpoints. Samples were labeled with pseudonymized IDs, with no indicating clinical information provided.
Patients underwent routine CT scans every 6 months for disease evaluation.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were summarized using descriptive statistics. Distributions of continuous variables were assessed for normality using the Shapiro–Wilk test. For non-normally distributed continuous variables, differences between groups were analyzed using the Mann–Whitney U test with continuity correction. The Friedman test with Dunn–Bonferroni multiple comparison tests was applied for the analysis of non-normal β-hCG longitudinal data. Trends were assessed with the Page test. Normally distributed longitudinal β-hCG concentration datasets violating the sphericity assumption were analyzed using ANOVA Friedman test. Delta β-hCG was defined as the difference between the final and initial β-hCG measurements and was examined by Mann–Whitney U test with continuity correction, due to a lack of normal distribution within datasets. We evaluated correlations between continuous variables using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. Univariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to assess the value of initial β-hCG concentration in predicting treatment response. We generated a Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (ROC), and calculated the area under the curve (AUC), along with its 95% confidence intervals (CI), using DeLong’s method to assess the performance of the model.
All tests were two-tailed with the significance level set at α = 0.05. p values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Analysis was performed using Statistica version 13 (TIBCO Software Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA), and PyCharm 2024 1.1. Integrated Development Environment (Jet Brains, Prague, Czech Republic), with data processing, modeling, and visualization performed using Python 3.12. programming language with the pandas 2.2.2, statsmodels 0.14.2, scikit-learn 1.4.2, numpy 2.0.0rc1, and matplotlib 3.8.4 packages.

3. Results

3.1. Baseline Characteristics

We included 40 non-functioning panNETs patients. Participants had a mean age of 63 and were predominantly female (70%). Of the study group, 45% had a G1 tumor, 47.5% had stable disease according to RECIST 1.1., and 55% had a LTB score of under 10%. Study group characteristics are displayed on Table 1.

3.2. β-hCG Concentration Depending on Tumor Malignancy

We examined the relationship between serum β-hCG concentrations and indicators of cell proliferation, including grading, treatment response, and LTB. Each patient underwent 16 β-hCG measurements at 3-month intervals. β-hCG showed a strong positive correlation with PD, G2, and 10–25% LTB. The level of statistical significance was <0.001 across all variables. Moreover, the correlation was consistent and persisted at all measuring time points. The results of this analysis are displayed in Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4. Complete statistical analysis is available in the Supplementary File S1.

3.3. β-hCG Changes over Time

We observed a substantial increase in β-hCG concentrations across 16 measurements in the study group and in all subgroups. Moreover, the 95% confidence intervals within the subgroups did not overlap at any time point, as shown in Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3. Complete results of the repeated measures analysis, including post hoc analysis and Page test for trend are provided in the Supplementary File S1. Additionally, we assessed the relationship between delta β-hCG and the study variables. The increase in β-hCG was greater in patients with PD, 10–25% LTB, and G2. Age of the participants was not a significant factor in the analysis. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 5 and Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6.

3.4. β-hCG and Predicting Treatment Response

We performed a logistic regression analysis to evaluate the association between treatment response and initial β-hCG concentration. The analysis revealed the initial β-hCG levels can predict the occurrence of PD within the study group (beta = 0.0171, OR= 1.0173, p = 0.003). The results of this analysis are presented in Table 6.
Furthermore, the ROC curve demonstrated good discriminative ability of the logistic regression model, with an AUC of 0.9173. The optimal sensitivity and specificity were 90.48% and 94.74% respectively. The results of ROC analysis are displayed in Figure 7.

4. Discussion

Our findings reveal a strong correlation between serum β-hCG concentrations and known indicators of aggressive panNET behavior, including disease progression per RECIST 1.1, high tumor grade, and large volume of tumor metastases. This correlation remained consistent throughout a 48-month follow-up period, suggesting potential usefulness of β-hCG as a monitoring biomarker. β-hCG has also shown good accuracy in predicting PD in metastatic panNETs.

4.1. History of β-hCG Research in NETs

The first evidence of aberrant β-hCG secretion in NETs was provided by Kahn et al. in 1977. Initially, elevated β-hCG concentrations were associated with the presence of panNETs, as opposed to the ectopic production of alpha hCG (a-hCG) in midgut NETs. Similar observations were made by Oberg et al. in their 1981 study [23,25]. In 1987, Heitz et al. examined tissue expression of hCG subunits in panNETs. The observation was not confirmatory for β-hCG, with the results attributed to the insufficient sensitivity of the testing method [18]. Over time, however, elevated serum β-hCG concentrations were detected in 12–30% of panNETs, supporting the existence of ectopic production in a substantial group of patients [21,22,26,27]. Notably, combining β-hCG measurement with chromogranin A or alpha-fetoprotein showed improved diagnostic accuracy and potential utility in identification of patients with poor prognosis [21]. Still, the data remain scarce and scientific guidelines recommend against routine use of β-hCG for diagnosis and monitoring [6,28,29,30].

4.2. Commentary on the Results of the Study

A statistical association between elevated β-hCG concentrations and variables indicating high levels of cellular proliferation support the hypothesis of its use as a marker of poor prognosis in NETs, as outlined by Shah et al. [21]. Higher β-hCG concentrations in the presence of PD, as per RECIST 1.1., are of particular interest, suggesting its potential as a prognostic biomarker. Moreover, a rising trend of β-hCG concentrations can be used for serial monitoring to alert physicians of potential progression in high-risk patients.
The results of the study should be interpreted in the context of different hCG forms, with distinct roles and structures. As noted in the introduction, hCG forms linked with the neoplastic process include hyperglycosylated hCG (secreted by the choriocarcinoma and germ cell tumors), β-hCG, and hyperglycosylated β-hCG (found in various neoplasms). It is hypothesized that as neoplasms undergo mutations and progress, they begin to produce β-hCG or hyperglycosylated β-hCG. These neoplasm-linked forms bind to the TGF-β receptor, inhibiting apoptosis [14,31]. We suggest that the same mechanism may occur in advanced NETs. As highlighted earlier, less than half of panNETs were found to produce β-hCG [21,22,26,27]. However, these studies included mostly patients with localized disease, while our research focused exclusively on subjects with metastatic disease. In this setting, a rising trend was present across all patients with metastases, with a sharper rise detected in the more aggressive tumors.
We align with the view of the expert consensus that, given a diverse nature of NETs, relying on a single substance as a solution to the lack of suitable biomarkers is unlikely [2]. Several researchers supported the addition of β-hCG to the already existing diagnostic algorithm in order to improve its diagnostic accuracy [6,7,21,32]. β-hCG measurement represents a widely available and relatively inexpensive option, especially when compared to complex multianalyte assays. Serial β-hCG monitoring could provide physicians with additional information about the state of the disease and help guide management decisions. A more accurate depiction of the disease acquired by combining β-hCG with other biomarkers and imaging modalities would help guide patient care in the transitional period until multianalytes become a routine tool. As an example, a substantial rise between measurements (e.g., doubling time) or an elevated value in a single sample, could serve as an indicator for the earlier introduction of another form of treatment. In this setting, a more thorough research of β-hCG in NETs is justified. Lastly, evaluating urinary hCG levels and comparing them with serum concentrations presents another interesting research direction. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of urinary β-hCG concentration could present an inexpensive and non-invasive alternative for monitoring of the disease status. However, quantitative β-hCG assays are not widely available and, while the qualitative tests are easily accessible, they provide little information and may not detect the specific β-hCG isoforms produced by NETs [33].

4.3. Study Limitations

Biomarkers in NETs (e.g., chromogranin A) typically have different diagnostic accuracy depending on the primary location of the tumor. Hence, the main limitation of our study remains the sole inclusion of pancreatic NETs. Furthermore, all patients throughout the study period were treated with SSA, with its impact on β-hCG being unknown. Even though β-hCG concentrations in patients with indicators of more malignant disease were higher across all time points, the time since the introduction of SSA in each patient differed and was not accounted for in the calculations. Even though we present a rationale for the use of β-hCG in the group of patients with advanced disease, our study does not provide an analysis for its use in early detection and localized disease, where the need for biomarkers is crucial. A comparison with non-metastatic panNETs and a healthy control group is required to evaluate its potential diagnostic utility. However, considering that β-hCG is usually expressed in more aggressive NETs, its role as a diagnostic biomarker could be limited. Given the single-center aspect of our trial and the rare disease nature of NETs, the limited sample size presents another limitation. As displayed in Figure 8, there was a notable overlap of variables, indicating an aggressive disease, where patients with PD often also presented with a G2 tumor and high LTB. Furthermore, the WHO Grade 2 patients in the study presented with Ki-67 levels up to 10%. Patients with Ki-67 levels in the 10–20% range were not accounted for, thus not representing the full spectrum of G2 patients. PanNETs with Ki-67 index over 10% often have similar disease characteristics to other G2 patients, however a number of clinical trials (such as CLARINET or NETTER-2) have separated these two subgroups [34]. Additionally, incorporating variables such as the status of ATRX/DAXX, ALT, and information about primary tumor size could enhance the analysis and provide a more comprehensive depiction of the disease status. However, these immunohistological markers are not yet routine and were not part of our analysis. While this observation highlights the correlation between aggressive tumor behavior and β-hCG concentration, it also underscores the presence of various compounding factors requiring consideration when interpreting study results. Moreover, elevated β-hCG is present in various neoplasms, as well as benign diseases, and in pregnancy, which can lead to false positive measurements [20].
Finally, the observed performance metrics of the logistic regression analysis raise concerns regarding potential model overfitting. High sensitivity and specificity in predicting the occurrence of PD are encouraging. However, the low p-value from the Hosmer–Lemeshow test (p = 0.0294, as shown in the Supplementary Table S6.3. in the Supplementary File S1) and the highly selective nature of the patient recruitment process discussed in this paragraph suggest there is a risk that the model has learned specific patterns from the training data that may not generalize well to new, unseen data. Further investigation and validation studies are warranted to assess the robustness and generalizability of the model.

5. Conclusions

The results of our research remain consistent with prior studies identifying links between elevated β-hCG in NETs and disease severity. Our initiative for further research and possible introduction of β-hCG assessment into routine is amplified by the continuously rising incidence rates of NETs worldwide and the remaining lack of suitable biomarkers [35,36]. Overcoming of scientific and economic barriers requires time. Multianalytes offer a promising, albeit relatively distant, vision of the future. In this context, we conclude that β-hCG warrants further investigation as a NET biomarker. We propose future directions of research to include studies across different disease characteristics (different primary locations, localized versus advanced disease), as well as focusing on changes over time depending on an outcome (e.g., β-hCG doubling time, change in β-hCG relative to applied treatment).

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/cancers16112060/s1, File S1: Complete statistical analysis of the study group.

Author Contributions

P.K.: conceptualization, methodology, validation, formal analysis, investigation, resources, data curation, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing, visualization, supervision, project administration, funding acquisition; P.G.: conceptualization, methodology, validation, formal analysis, investigation, resources, data curation, writing—review and editing, supervision, project administration; M.C. (Maja Cieślewicz): conceptualization, formal analysis, investigation, resources, data curation, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing, visualization; J.M.: conceptualization, formal analysis, investigation, resources, data curation, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing, visualization; A.M.: conceptualization, formal analysis, investigation, resources, data curation, writing—review and editing; M.C. (Michalina Czupińska): conceptualization, formal analysis, investigation, resources, data curation, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing, visualization; G.M.: conceptualization, validation, formal analysis, investigation, writing—review and editing, visualization, supervision, project administration; M.R.: conceptualization, validation, formal analysis, investigation, writing—review and editing, visualization, supervision, project administration, funding acquisition. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Poznan University of Medical Sciences: “Grants from the statutory subsidy for Young Scientists—Ph.D. students of the Doctoral School for 2023—Large Research Grant”; grant number NMN0000067. P.K. is the administrator of the grant and the primary investigator, P.G. is the project supervisor.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Regional Bioethical Committee at the Poznan University of Medical Sciences (Approval Number: 969/10). All patients were over 18 years old and signed an informed consent form prior to participation.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Acknowledgments

Paweł Komarnicki is a participant of STER Internationalization of Doctoral Schools Program from NAWA Polish National Agency for Academic Exchange No. PPI/STE/2020/1/00014/DEC/02. The authors would like to thank Izabela Miechowicz for performing descriptive statistics and for her technical support throughout the manuscript preparation process. During the preparation of this work, the authors used Claude AI 2.1 (Anthropic PBC, San Francisco, CA, USA) in order to draft the outline of the article, proofread the manuscript, identify potential errors, and refine the wording and phrasing. After using this tool, the authors reviewed and edited the content as needed and take full responsibility for the content of the publication.

Conflicts of Interest

P.K.: honoraria from Novartis, Ipsen, clinical trial remuneration from Neurocrine Biosciences, Crinetics Pharmaceuticas, Ascendis Pharma; P.G.: honoraria from Novartis, Ipsen; M.C.: no conflict of interest; J.M.: honoraria from Novartis; A.M.: no conflict of interest; M.C.: no conflict of interest; G.M.: no conflict of interest; M.R.: honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, Ipsen, Berlin-Chemie Menarini, Genzyme, Merck, IBSA. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Taal, B.G.; Visser, O. Epidemiology of Neuroendocrine Tumours. Neuroendocrinology 2004, 80, 3–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Oberg, K.; Modlin, I.M.; De Herder, W.; Pavel, M.; Klimstra, D.; Frilling, A.; Metz, D.C.; Heaney, A.; Kwekkeboom, D.; Strosberg, J.; et al. Consensus on Biomarkers for Neuroendocrine Tumour Disease. Lancet Oncol. 2015, 16, e435–e446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Gut, P.; Czarnywojtek, A.; Sawicka-Gutaj, N.; Woliński, K.; Maciejewski, A.; Komarnicki, P.; Ruchała, M. Determination of Neuron-Specific Enolase in Patients with Midgut-Type Tumour Treated with Somatostatin Analogues. Endokrynol. Pol. 2021, 72, 308–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Prinz, R.A.; Bermes, E.W.; Kimmel, J.R.; Marangos, P.J. Serum Markers for Pancreatic Islet Cell and Intestinal Carcinoid Tumors: A Comparison of Neuron-Specific Enolase, Beta-Human Chorionic Gonadotropin and Pancreatic Polypeptide. Surgery 1983, 94, 1019–1023. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  5. Komarnicki, P.; Gut, P.; Musiałkiewicz, J.; Cieślewicz, M.; Maciejewski, A.; Patel, P.; Mastorakos, G.; Ruchała, M. NT-ProBNP as a Neuroendocrine Tumor Biomarker: Beyond Heart Failure. Endocr. Connect. 2023, 12, e230249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Oberg, K. Circulating Biomarkers in Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumours. Endocr. Relat. Cancer 2011, 18, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Komarnicki, P.; Musiałkiewicz, J.; Stańska, A.; Maciejewski, A.; Gut, P.; Mastorakos, G.; Ruchała, M. Circulating Neuroendocrine Tumor Biomarkers: Past, Present and Future. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 5542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Modlin, I.M.; Drozdov, I.; Alaimo, D.; Callahan, S.; Teixiera, N.; Bodei, L.; Kidd, M. A Multianalyte PCR Blood Test Outperforms Single Analyte ELISAs (Chromogranin A, Pancreastatin, Neurokinin A) for Neuroendocrine Tumor Detection. Endocr. Relat. Cancer 2014, 21, 615–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Malczewska, A.; Kos-Kudła, B.; Kidd, M.; Drozdov, I.; Bodei, L.; Matar, S.; Oberg, K.; Modlin, I.M. The Clinical Applications of a Multigene Liquid Biopsy (NETest) in Neuroendocrine Tumors. Adv. Med. Sci. 2020, 65, 18–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Marinoni, I.; Kurrer, A.S.; Vassella, E.; Dettmer, M.; Rudolph, T.; Banz, V.; Hunger, F.; Pasquinelli, S.; Speel, E.J.; Perren, A. Loss of DAXX and ATRX Are Associated with Chromosome Instability and Reduced Survival of Patients with Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors. Gastroenterology 2014, 146, 453–460.e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hackeng, W.M.; Brosens, L.A.A.; Kim, J.Y.; O’Sullivan, R.; Sung, Y.N.; Liu, T.C.; Cao, D.; Heayn, M.; Brosnan-Cashman, J.; An, S.; et al. Non-Functional Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumours: ATRX/DAXX and Alternative Lengthening of Telomeres (ALT) Are Prognostically Independent from ARX/PDX1 Expression and Tumour Size. Gut 2022, 71, 961–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Dunn, C.; Gately, L.; Gibbs, P. Drinking from the Firehose—A Clinician’s Perspective on the Challenges of Delivering Biomarker-Driven Care in Routine Practice. Eur. J. Cancer 2021, 157, 301–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Cole, L.A. HCG, the Wonder of Today’s Science. Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol. 2012, 10, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Cole, L.A. HCG, Five Independent Molecules. Clin. Chim. Acta 2012, 413, 48–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Seidel, C.; Daugaard, G.; Nestler, T.; Tryakin, A.; Fedyanin, M.; Fankhauser, C.; Hermanns, T.; Aparicio, J.; Heinzelbecker, J.; Paffenholz, P.; et al. Human Chorionic Gonadotropin–Positive Seminoma Patients: A Registry Compiled by the Global Germ Cell Tumor Collaborative Group (G3). Eur. J. Cancer 2020, 132, 127–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Webb, A.; Scott-Mackie, P.; Cunningham, D.; Norman, A.; Andreyev, J.; O’Brien, M.; Bensted, J. The Prognostic Value of Serum and Immunohistochemical Tumour Markers in Advanced Gastric Cancer. Eur. J. Cancer 1996, 32, 63–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Doi, F.; Chi, D.D.J.; Charuworn, B.B.; Conrad, A.J.; Russell, J.; Morton, D.L.; Hoon, D.S.B. Detection of β-Human Chorionic Gonadotropin MRNA as a Marker for Cutaneous Malignant Melanoma. Int. J. Cancer 1996, 65, 454–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Heitz, P.U.; Von Herbay, G.; Klöppel, G.; Komminoth, P.; Kasper, M.; Höfler, H.; Müller, K.-M.; Oberholzer, M. The Expression of Subunits of Human Chorionic Gonadotropin (HCG) by Nontrophoblastic, Nonendocrine, and Endocrine Tumors. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 1987, 88, 467–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Dirnhofer, S.; Freund, M.; Rogatsch, H.; Krabichler, S.; Berger, P. Selective Expression of Trophoblastic Hormones by Lung Carcinoma: Neurendocrine Tumors Exclusively Produce Human Chorionic Gonadotropin α-Subunit (HCGα). Hum. Pathol. 2000, 31, 966–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Stenman, U.H.; Alfthan, H.; Hotakainen, K. Human Chorionic Gonadotropin in Cancer. Clin. Biochem. 2004, 37, 549–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Shah, T.; Srirajaskanthan, R.; Bhogal, M.; Toubanakis, C.; Meyer, T.; Noonan, A.; Witney-Smith, C.; Amin, T.; Bhogal, P.; Sivathasan, N.; et al. α-Fetoprotein and Human Chorionic Gonadotrophin-β as Prognostic Markers in Neuroendocrine Tumour Patients. Br. J. Cancer 2008, 99, 72–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Eriksson, B.; Ouberg, K.; Skogseid, B. Neuroendocrine Pancreatic Tumors Clinical Findings in a Prospective Study of 84 Patients. Acta Oncol. 1989, 28, 373–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Oberg, K.; Wide, L. HCG and HCG Subunits as Tumour Markers in Patients with Endocrine Pancreatic Tumours and Carcinoids. Acta Endocrinol. 1981, 98, 256–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Rindi, G.; Mete, O.; Uccella, S.; Basturk, O.; La Rosa, S.; Brosens, L.A.A.; Ezzat, S.; de Herder, W.W.; Klimstra, D.S.; Papotti, M.; et al. Overview of the 2022 WHO Classification of Neuroendocrine Neoplasms. Endocr. Pathol. 2022, 33, 115–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Kahn, C.R.; Rosen, S.W.; Weintraub, B.D.; Fajans, S.S.; Gorden, P. Ectopic Production of Chorionic Gonadotropin and Its Subunits by Islet-Cell Tumors. N. Engl. J. Med. 1977, 297, 565–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Grossmann, M.; Trautmann, M.E.; Poertl, S.; Hoermann, R.; Berger, P.; Arnold, R.; Mann, K. Alpha-subunit and Human Chorionic Gonadotropin-β Immunoreactivity in Patients with Malignant Endocrine Gastroenteropancreatic Tumours. Eur. J. Clin. Investig. 1994, 24, 131–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Baudin, E.; Bidart, J.M.; Rougier, P.; Lazar, V.; Ruffié, P.; Ropers, J.; Ducreux, M.; Troalen, F.; Sabourin, J.C.; Comoy, E.; et al. Screening for Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia Type I and Hormonal Production in Apparently Sporadic Neuroendocrine Tumors. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 1999, 84, 69–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Ramage, J.K.; Davies, A.H.G.; Ardill, J.; Bax, N.; Caplin, M.; Grossman, A.; Hawkins, R.; McNicol, A.M.; Reed, N.; Sutton, R.; et al. Guidelines for the Management of Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine (Including Carcinoid) Tumours. Gut 2005, 54, iv1–iv16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Grimaldi, F.; Fazio, N.; Attanasio, R.; Frasoldati, A.; Papini, E.; Angelini, F.; Baldelli, R.; Berretti, D.; Bianchetti, S.; Bizzarri, G.; et al. Italian Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AME) Position Statement: A Stepwise Clinical Approach to the Diagnosis of Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms. J. Endocrinol. Investig. 2014, 37, 875–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Sansone, A.; Lauretta, R.; Vottari, S.; Chiefari, A.; Barnabei, A.; Romanelli, F.; Appetecchia, M. Specific and Non-Specific Biomarkers in Neuroendocrine Gastroenteropancreatic Tumors. Cancers 2019, 11, 1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Cole, L.A.; Butler, S. Hyperglycosylated HCG, HCGβ and Hyperglycosylated HCGβ: Interchangeable Cancer Promoters. Mol. Cell. Endocrinol. 2012, 349, 232–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Kanakis, G.; Kaltsas, G. Biochemical Markers for Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumours (GEP-NETs). Best Pract. Res. Clin. Gastroenterol. 2012, 26, 791–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Cole, L.A.; Khanlian, S.A. The Need for a Quantitative Urine HCG Assay. Clin. Biochem. 2009, 42, 676–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Merola, E.; Alonso Gordoa, T.; Zhang, P.; Al-Toubah, T.; Pellè, E.; Kolasińska-Ćwikła, A.; Zandee, W.; Laskaratos, F.; Mestier, L.; Lamarca, A.; et al. Somatostatin Analogs for Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors: Any Benefit When Ki-67 Is ≥10%? Oncologist 2021, 26, 294–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Das, S.; Dasari, A. Epidemiology, Incidence, and Prevalence of Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: Are There Global Differences? Curr. Oncol. Rep. 2021, 23, 10–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Dasari, A.; Shen, C.; Halperin, D.; Zhao, B.; Zhou, S.; Xu, Y. Trends in the Incidence, Prevalence, and Survival Outcomes in Patients with Neuroendocrine Tumors in the United States. JAMA Oncol. 2017, 3, 1335–1342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. The changes in β-hCG concentration over the 48-month study period depending on the treatment response according to RECIST 1.1. Mean β-hCG concentrations at a given time point determined by a sample number are presented as squares in patients with stable disease (SD) and circles in patients with progressive disease (PD). Vertical lines display 95% confidence intervals in each of the time points.
Figure 1. The changes in β-hCG concentration over the 48-month study period depending on the treatment response according to RECIST 1.1. Mean β-hCG concentrations at a given time point determined by a sample number are presented as squares in patients with stable disease (SD) and circles in patients with progressive disease (PD). Vertical lines display 95% confidence intervals in each of the time points.
Cancers 16 02060 g001
Figure 2. The changes in β-hCG concentration over the study period depending on tumor grading based on 2022 WHO criteria. Mean β-hCG concentrations at a given time point determined by a sample number are presented as squares in patients with G1 tumors and circles in patients with G2 tumors. Vertical lines display 95% confidence intervals in each of the time points.
Figure 2. The changes in β-hCG concentration over the study period depending on tumor grading based on 2022 WHO criteria. Mean β-hCG concentrations at a given time point determined by a sample number are presented as squares in patients with G1 tumors and circles in patients with G2 tumors. Vertical lines display 95% confidence intervals in each of the time points.
Cancers 16 02060 g002
Figure 3. The changes in β-hCG concentration over the 48-month study period in subgroups depending on liver tumor burden (LTB). Mean β-hCG concentrations at a given time point determined by a sample number are presented as squares in patients with LTB up to 10% and circles in patients with LTB between 10 and 25%. Vertical lines display 95% confidence intervals in each of the time points.
Figure 3. The changes in β-hCG concentration over the 48-month study period in subgroups depending on liver tumor burden (LTB). Mean β-hCG concentrations at a given time point determined by a sample number are presented as squares in patients with LTB up to 10% and circles in patients with LTB between 10 and 25%. Vertical lines display 95% confidence intervals in each of the time points.
Cancers 16 02060 g003
Figure 4. Delta β-hCG concentration in patients with stable disease (SD) and progressive disease (PD) according to RECIST 1.1. Delta β-hCG represents the individual variation between final and initial β-hCG concentrations (measured in mIU/mL). Box plots depict the interquartile range (Q1 to Q3), with the median highlighted by the internal line. The whiskers extend to the minimum and maximum values of the dataset.
Figure 4. Delta β-hCG concentration in patients with stable disease (SD) and progressive disease (PD) according to RECIST 1.1. Delta β-hCG represents the individual variation between final and initial β-hCG concentrations (measured in mIU/mL). Box plots depict the interquartile range (Q1 to Q3), with the median highlighted by the internal line. The whiskers extend to the minimum and maximum values of the dataset.
Cancers 16 02060 g004
Figure 5. Delta β-hCG concentration in patients with G1 and G2 tumors defined by 2022 WHO grading. Delta β-hCG represents the individual variation between final and initial β-hCG concentrations (measured in mIU/mL). Box plots depict the interquartile range (Q1 to Q3), with the median highlighted by the internal line. The whiskers extend to the minimum and maximum values of the dataset.
Figure 5. Delta β-hCG concentration in patients with G1 and G2 tumors defined by 2022 WHO grading. Delta β-hCG represents the individual variation between final and initial β-hCG concentrations (measured in mIU/mL). Box plots depict the interquartile range (Q1 to Q3), with the median highlighted by the internal line. The whiskers extend to the minimum and maximum values of the dataset.
Cancers 16 02060 g005
Figure 6. Delta β-hCG concentration in patients with up to 10% and 10–25% liver tumor burden (LTB). Delta β-hCG represents the individual variation between final and initial β-hCG concentrations (measured in mIU/mL). Box plots depict the interquartile range (Q1 to Q3), with the median highlighted by the internal line. The whiskers extend to the minimum and maximum values of the dataset.
Figure 6. Delta β-hCG concentration in patients with up to 10% and 10–25% liver tumor burden (LTB). Delta β-hCG represents the individual variation between final and initial β-hCG concentrations (measured in mIU/mL). Box plots depict the interquartile range (Q1 to Q3), with the median highlighted by the internal line. The whiskers extend to the minimum and maximum values of the dataset.
Cancers 16 02060 g006
Figure 7. ROC curve analysis illustrating the prognostic accuracy of initial β-hCG concentration on the occurrence of progressive disease. The dotted line represents the ROC curve if the classification is randomly estimated. The red dot indicates the optimal operating point for sensitivity and specificity.
Figure 7. ROC curve analysis illustrating the prognostic accuracy of initial β-hCG concentration on the occurrence of progressive disease. The dotted line represents the ROC curve if the classification is randomly estimated. The red dot indicates the optimal operating point for sensitivity and specificity.
Cancers 16 02060 g007
Figure 8. Gantt diagrams illustrating study group characteristics and the overlap between variables in the study subjects.
Figure 8. Gantt diagrams illustrating study group characteristics and the overlap between variables in the study subjects.
Cancers 16 02060 g008
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of the study group.
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of the study group.
VariableAll Patients (n = 40)
Demographics
  Age, years63 (8) *
Sex
  Male12 (30%)
  Female28 (70%)
Clinical characteristics
Primary tumor location
  Pancreas40 (100%)
Liver Tumor Burden
  Up to 10%22 (55%)
  10–25%18 (45%)
Grading by WHO
  G118 (45%)
  G222 (55%)
Treatment response by RECIST 1.1.
  Stable Disease (SD)19 (47.5%)
  Progressive Disease (PD)21 (52.5%)
Ki 67
  1%2 (5%)
  2%16 (40%)
  4%2 (5%)
  5%8 (20%)
  10%12 (30%)
* Mean (S.D.).
Table 2. Relationship between the serum concentration of β-hCG and treatment response according to RECIST 1.1 across 16 evenly distanced measurements over 48 months.
Table 2. Relationship between the serum concentration of β-hCG and treatment response according to RECIST 1.1 across 16 evenly distanced measurements over 48 months.
Measuring Time PointMedian β-hCG—SD [mIU/mL]Median β-hCG—PD [mIU/mL]Sum of Ranks SDSum of Ranks PDUZ Correctedp
1.67.80356.4022359733−4.4964<0.001
2.76.50376.3022060030−4.5783<0.001
3.86.30389.5021960129−4.6047<0.001
4.93.40402.6022060030−4.5776<0.001
5.102.30420.4021960129−4.6047<0.001
6.113.40438.4021860228−4.6314<0.001
7.123.40451.2021960129−4.6045<0.001
8.134.20462.4021760327−4.6587<0.001
9.143.50476.5021860228−4.6314<0.001
10.153.40487.6021960129−4.6043<0.001
11.159.40496.7021960129−4.6043<0.001
12.167.80515.8022060030−4.5772<0.001
13.178.50527.8022259832−4.5230<0.001
14.189.70546.7022359733−4.4964<0.001
15.199.60576.3022359733−4.4962<0.001
16.212.80598.7022359733−4.4959<0.001
Table 3. Relationship between the serum concentration of β-hCG and grading according to RECIST 1.1 across 16 evenly distanced measurements over 48 months.
Table 3. Relationship between the serum concentration of β-hCG and grading according to RECIST 1.1 across 16 evenly distanced measurements over 48 months.
Measuring Time PointMedian β-hCG—G1 [mIU/mL]Median β-hCG—G2 [mIU/mL]Sum of Ranks G1Sum of Ranks G2UZ Correctedp
1.67.70354.3521160940−4.2822<0.001
2.76.50368.7521160940−4.2829<0.001
3.85.40375.7021061039−4.3094<0.001
4.95.60390.60213.5606.542−4.2143<0.001
5.102.40409.5521460643−4.2007<0.001
6.114.40427.6021360742−4.2275<0.001
7.123.45442.0021660445−4.1461<0.001
8.135.45457.8021560544−4.1733<0.001
9.143.60473.1521760346−4.1187<0.001
10.154.90480.4021660445−4.1459<0.001
11.162.55488.9521660445−4.1459<0.001
12.171.05507.2521560544−4.1731<0.001
13.182.95522.1521660445−4.1459<0.001
14.192.55545.2021760346−4.1191<0.001
15.200.95570.3521860247−4.0917<0.001
16.213.10593.1521660445−4.1459<0.001
Table 4. Relationship between the serum concentration of β-hCG and liver tumor burden according to RECIST 1.1 across 16 evenly distanced measurements over 48 months.
Table 4. Relationship between the serum concentration of β-hCG and liver tumor burden according to RECIST 1.1 across 16 evenly distanced measurements over 48 months.
Measuring Time PointMedian β-hCG—up to 10% [mIU/mL]Median β-hCG—10–25% [mIU/mL]Sum of Ranks up to 10%Sum of Ranks 10–25%UZ Correctedp
1.72.15382.2027554522−4.7717<0.001
2.79.40397.1527254819−4.8539<0.001
3.87.40413.0527154918−4.8804<0.001
4.95.60429.9527154918−4.8804<0.001
5.102.40442.8027154918−4.8804<0.001
6.114.40457.9027055017−4.9071<0.001
7.123.45472.4027154918−4.8802<0.001
8.135.45490.9526855215−4.9617<0.001
9.143.60510.2526955116−4.9343<0.001
10.154.90523.0026955116−4.9343<0.001
11.162.55535.0526955116−4.9343<0.001
12.171.05550.3026955116−4.9343<0.001
13.182.95562.3027154918−4.8800<0.001
14.192.55578.3027154918−4.8804<0.001
15.200.95594.7027254819−4.8530<0.001
16.213.10612.1527254819−4.8530<0.001
Table 5. Relationship between delta β-hCG and study variables: treatment response, grading, liver tumor burden, and patient age. Mann–Whitney U tests were employed for treatment response, grading, and liver tumor burden, while the Spearman rank correlation test was used for patient age.
Table 5. Relationship between delta β-hCG and study variables: treatment response, grading, liver tumor burden, and patient age. Mann–Whitney U tests were employed for treatment response, grading, and liver tumor burden, while the Spearman rank correlation test was used for patient age.
VariableMedian β-hCG [mIU/mL]Sum of RanksUZ Correctedp
Treatment Response
SD147.5026373−3.4127<0.001
PD260.70557
Grading
G1143.2326190−2.92270.003
G2256.25559
Liver Tumor Burden
up to 10%146.6530754−3.9014<0.001
10–25%267.00513
Patient AgeR SpearmanT (N-2)0.97
−0.0069−0.0423
Table 6. Logistic regression analysis of initial β-hCG concentration for predicting progressive disease.
Table 6. Logistic regression analysis of initial β-hCG concentration for predicting progressive disease.
VariableBeta Coefficient95% CI for Betap-ValueOdds Ratio95% CI for OR
Intercept−3.2841(−5.2093, −1.359)0.00080.0375(0.0055, 0.2569)
Initial β-hCG0.0171(0.0079, 0.0264)0.00031.0173(1.0079, 1.0268)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Komarnicki, P.; Gut, P.; Cieślewicz, M.; Musiałkiewicz, J.; Maciejewski, A.; Czupińska, M.; Mastorakos, G.; Ruchała, M. Serum β-hCG as a Biomarker in Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors: Rethinking Single-Analyte Approach. Cancers 2024, 16, 2060. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16112060

AMA Style

Komarnicki P, Gut P, Cieślewicz M, Musiałkiewicz J, Maciejewski A, Czupińska M, Mastorakos G, Ruchała M. Serum β-hCG as a Biomarker in Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors: Rethinking Single-Analyte Approach. Cancers. 2024; 16(11):2060. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16112060

Chicago/Turabian Style

Komarnicki, Paweł, Paweł Gut, Maja Cieślewicz, Jan Musiałkiewicz, Adam Maciejewski, Michalina Czupińska, George Mastorakos, and Marek Ruchała. 2024. "Serum β-hCG as a Biomarker in Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors: Rethinking Single-Analyte Approach" Cancers 16, no. 11: 2060. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16112060

APA Style

Komarnicki, P., Gut, P., Cieślewicz, M., Musiałkiewicz, J., Maciejewski, A., Czupińska, M., Mastorakos, G., & Ruchała, M. (2024). Serum β-hCG as a Biomarker in Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors: Rethinking Single-Analyte Approach. Cancers, 16(11), 2060. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16112060

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop