BackgroundMicroRNAs biomarkers have shown value for diagnosis and prognosis of various cancers. Combination with established tumor markers has rarely been done.ResultsBreast cancer patients had significantly higher serum RNA loads (AUC 0.665), lower miR-34a (AUC 0.772), higher CEA and CA 15-3 levels (AUCs 0.717 and 0.721) than healthy controls. miR-34a correlated with tumor stage and hormone receptor status. There was no significant difference between groups for all other miRNAs. Combination of miR-34a with CEA or CA 15-3 led to improved AUCs of 0.844 and 0.800, respectively. Sensitivity of miR-34a and CA 15-3 reached 56.1% at 95% specificity. When compared with benign breast diseases, combination of miR-34a (AUC 0.719) and CEA (0.623) or CA 15-3 (0.619) resulted in improved performances (0.794 and 0.741). Sensitivity of miR-34a and CA 15-3 reached 53.7% at 95% specificity.ConclusionWhile miR-34a provides valuable information for diagnosis and staging, combination with tumor markers CA15-3 or CEA improves the sensitivity for breast cancer detection.Patients and MethodsThe diagnostic relevance of the miR-21, miR-34a, miR-92a, miR-155, miR-222 and miR-let-7c was tested in sera of 103 individuals (55 breast cancer, 20 benign breast diseases, 28 healthy controls). MiRNAs were detected by quantitative rt-PCR after extraction and reverse transcription. Cel-miR-39 and miR-16 were used for normalization. Established tumor markers CEA, CA 15-3, CA 19-9 and CA 125 were measured by automatized immunoassays. Diagnostic performance was tested by areas under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and sensitivities at 90% and 95% specificity.

Background: Despite the significance of colonoscopy for early diagnosis of colorectal adenocarcinoma (CRC), population-wide screening remains challenging, mainly because of low acceptance rates. Herein, exosomal (exo-miR) and free circulating microRNA (c-miR) may be used as liquid biopsies in CRC to identify individuals at risk. Direct comparison of both compartments has shown inconclusive results, which is why we directly compared a panel of 10 microRNAs in this entity. Methods: Exo-miR and c-miR levels were measured using real-time quantitative PCR after isolation from serum specimens in a cohort of 69 patients. Furthermore, results were compared to established tumor markers CEA and CA 19-9. Results: Direct comparison of exo- and c-miR biopsy results showed significantly higher microRNA levels in the exosomal compartment (p < 0.001). Exo-Let7, exo-miR-16 and exo-miR-23 significantly differed between CRC and healthy controls (all p < 0.05), while no c-miR showed this potential. Sensitivity and specificity can be further enhanced using combinations of multiple exosomal miRNAs. Conclusions: Exosomal microRNA should be considered as a promising biomarker in CRC for future studies. Nonetheless, results may show interference with common comorbidities, which must be taken into account in future studies.