Gudowska-Sawczuk M, Pączek S, Olkowicz M, Kudelski J, Mroczko B. Gasdermin D (GSDM D) as a Potential Diagnostic Biomarker in Bladder Cancer: New Perspectives in Detection.
Cancers (Basel) 2024;
16:4213. [PMID:
39766111 PMCID:
PMC11674414 DOI:
10.3390/cancers16244213]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/21/2024] [Revised: 12/10/2024] [Accepted: 12/16/2024] [Indexed: 01/11/2025] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Traditional methods of bladder cancer (BC) diagnosis include clinical examination, imaging, urine tests, cystoscopy, and biopsy. Due to the complexity of detection, diagnostic markers of bladder cancer measured in blood are still being sought. The pathogenesis of BC is complex and depends on many factors. However, the available literature data suggest that gasdermin D (GSDM D) has an influence in the pathogenesis of cancers. This study is the first that assesses the significance and diagnostic utility of serum GSDM D in bladder cancer.
METHODS
A total of 80 serum samples were obtained and analysed from healthy volunteers (C) and bladder cancer patients. The cancer patients were further classified into two groups, low-grade (LG) and high-grade (HG) bladder cancer, according to the TNM classification. The serum levels of GSDM D, CEA, and CA19-9 were assessed following the manufacturer's instructions using immunoassay techniques.
RESULTS
The concentrations of GSDM D were nearly twice as high in the serum of BC patients compared to controls. Additionally, the median of GSDM D concentration was notably elevated in LG and HG bladder cancer than in C. In the total study group, the GSDM D concentration correlated with CRP and CEA levels. The diagnostic sensitivity of GSDM D was higher than that of CEA, but slightly lower in comparison to CA19-9. Moreover, the negative predictive value of GSDM D was the highest among all tested markers. The highest positive predictive value and diagnostic accuracy were observed for CEA, while the accuracy of GSDM D was comparable. GSDM D had an AUC value of 0.741, which was similar to the AUC value of CEA.
CONCLUSIONS
GSDM D in serum appears to be a valuable diagnostic biomarker, especially when its measurement is used in conjunction with other markers such as CEA. Its high sensitivity makes it effective for the early detection of bladder cancer.
Collapse