Systematic Review and Metanalysis of Oncomarkers in IPF Patients and Serial Changes of Oncomarkers in a Prospective Italian Real-Life Case Series

SIMPLE SUMMARY: This paper is a review of the literature on the clinical role of oncomarkers in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) progression, and a description of the routine oncomarker trend in IPF patients over the longest follow-up yet reported. This is the first meta-analysis to review the results of studies evaluating the predictive prognostic value of circulating oncomarkers (CEA, Ca15.3, Ca19.9, Ca125, and KL-6) for IPF. The study focused on the discovery of multiple biomarker signatures, such as combinations of oncomarkers, that are widely and routinely available in biochemistry laboratories. The combination of clinical parameters and biological markers could help achieve more accurate results regarding prognosis and response to treatment in IPF. Our results could pave the way for a more “personalized” medical approach to patients affected by IPF. ABSTRACT: Background: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a severe progressive interstitial lung disease. At 5-year follow-up, 15% of IPF patients develop lung cancer, which significantly reduces the survival rate. Here we review the literature on the clinical role of oncomarkers in IPF progression, and describe the trend of routine oncomarkers in IPF patients over the longest follow-up yet reported. Materials and methods: A systematic search of the literature in PubMed was performed to find relevant studies published up to 24 September 2020. The most common oncomarkers were chosen to select papers related to pulmonary fibrosis. Then, 24 IPF patients and 25 non-IPF patients, followed at Careggi ILD Referral Centre and Siena Regional Referral Centre for ILD, were enrolled consecutively. Results: A few studies reported an association between serum oncomarkers and severity of IPF. NSE, CEA, Ca19.9, and Ca125 were higher in the IPF, than in the non-IPF, group at every follow-up (p < 0.05). Ca15.3 concentrations were higher in the IPF, than the non-IPF, group at t3 (p = 0.0080) and t4 (p = 0.0168). To improve the specificity and sensitivity of Ca15.3, a panel of biomarkers was analyzed, with the IPF group as dependent variable, and chitotriosidase, Cyfra 21.1, Ca15.3, Ca125, and Ca19.9 as independent variables. Conclusions: This study focused on the discovery of multiple biomarker signatures, such as combinations of oncomarkers, that are widely and routinely available in biochemistry laboratories. The combination of clinical parameters and biological markers could help achieve more accurate results regarding prognosis and response to treatment in IPF. Our results could pave the way for a more “personalized” medical approach to patients affected by IPF.