Shows improved detection efficacy and prognostic prediction in cholangiocarcinoma, suggesting new biomarker potential.
Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) in Northeast Thailand is characterized by late diagnosis and poor prognosis, creating a critical need for effective early-detection biomarkers. This study utilized a multi-omics approach to identify novel diagnostic targets and improve CCA screening. Initial serum proteomic and transcriptomic analyses revealed significant upregulation of the luteinizing hormone/choriogonadotropin receptor (LHCGR) in CCA patients, correlating with advanced disease stages. Interaction network analysis subsequently identified its circulating ligand, beta-human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG), as a highly translatable clinical target. The protein expression of β-hCG was assessed via immunohistochemistry (IHC) in 100 tissue samples, and serum levels of β-hCG, alongside routine markers (CA19-9, AFP, and CEA), were quantified in a cohort of 405 individuals, including 153 CCA patients. IHC confirmed significantly higher β-hCG expression in tumor tissues compared to adjacent areas (p < 0.0001). Serum β-hCG levels were significantly elevated in CCA patients and correlated with tumor volume and reduced overall survival. Diagnostically, a combined multiparameter panel (β-hCG, carbohydrate antigen 19-9, carcinoembryonic antigen, and alpha-fetoprotein) yielded excellent accuracy in distinguishing CCA from healthy controls (AUC: 0.962) and hepatocellular carcinoma cases (AUC: 0.890). However, discriminatory efficiency was notably lower when differentiating CCA from benign biliary diseases (AUC: 0.680) and liver metastases (AUC: 0.705). In conclusion, activation of the LHCGR signaling axis is a novel pathophysiological feature in CCA. When integrated into a multi-marker blood panel, circulating β-hCG serves as a valuable complementary risk-stratification and prognostic tool, though further optimization is required to overcome limited specificity in the presence of confounding liver pathologies before routine clinical implementation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kongsintaweesuk et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: