Comparison of Five Different Bone Resorption Markers in Osteosarcoma-Bearing Dogs, Normal Dogs, and Dogs with Orthopedic Diseases

Background: Various bone resorption markers in humans are useful for supporting the diagnosis of malignant skeletal pathology, with certain bone resorption markers appearing to be more discriminatory for detecting cancer‐induced osteolysis than others. Canine osteosarcoma (OSA) is characterized by f...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of veterinary internal medicine 2008-07, Vol.22 (4), p.1008-1013
Hauptverfasser: Lucas, P.W, Fan, T.M, Garrett, L.D, Griffon, D.J, Wypij, J.M
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext bestellen
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1013
container_issue 4
container_start_page 1008
container_title Journal of veterinary internal medicine
container_volume 22
creator Lucas, P.W
Fan, T.M
Garrett, L.D
Griffon, D.J
Wypij, J.M
description Background: Various bone resorption markers in humans are useful for supporting the diagnosis of malignant skeletal pathology, with certain bone resorption markers appearing to be more discriminatory for detecting cancer‐induced osteolysis than others. Canine osteosarcoma (OSA) is characterized by focal bone destruction, but a systematic investigation for determining which bone resorption marker best supports the diagnosis of OSA in dogs has not been reported. Hypothesis: Dogs with OSA will have increased concentrations of bone resorption markers compared with healthy dogs and dogs with orthopedic disorders. Differences will exist among various bone resorption markers for their ability to support the diagnosis of malignant osteolysis in dogs with OSA. Animals: Single time point, cross‐sectional, cohort study including dogs with OSA (n = 20) or orthopedic disorders (n = 20) and healthy dogs (n = 22). Methods: Basal concentrations of urine and serum N‐telopeptide (NTx), urine and serum C‐telopeptide (CTx), and urine deoxypyridinoline (DPD) were compared among all 3 groups. Results: Compared with healthy dogs and dogs with orthopedic disorders, urine NTx, serum NTx, and serum CTx concentrations were significantly increased in dogs with OSA. For urine NTx and serum NTx, the calculated lower and upper 95% confidence limits in dogs with OSA did not overlap with dogs diagnosed with orthopedic disorders or healthy dogs. Conclusions and clinical importance: Of the markers evaluated in this study, urine NTx and serum NTx appear to be the most discriminatory resorption markers supporting the diagnosis of focal malignant osteolysis in dogs with OSA.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/j.1939-1676.2008.0134.x
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_24P</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_902331472</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>69338810</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5074-3d2805232ec8b57330f6b9498976ace4b0ab59bc8d8207f09a3c299bbe939b083</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkktv1DAURiMEotPCX6BewYYM13YetsSGmXb6UNuRgJal5SQ3Uw9JHOwMnS755zjMqOwQ3vih890r3eMoOqYwpWF9WE-p5DKmWZ5NGYCYAuXJdPssmjy9P48mICSNsyyBg-jQ-zUAS9M0fxkdUJFmCWMwiX7NbdtrZ7ztiK3JwvxEcmLqGh12A5nZDsln9Nb1gwnEtXbf0XliOrL0A1qvXWlbHc8wlOhW5MSu_HtyY12rm_1Fd9WfE3kwwz1ZuuHe9liZMnTxqD36V9GLWjceX-_3o-h2cfp1fh5fLc8u5p-u4jKFPIl5xQSkjDMsRZHmnEOdFTKRQuaZLjEpQBepLEpRCQZ5DVLzkklZFBgGUoDgR9G7Xd3e2R8b9INqjS-xaXSHduOVBMY5TXIWyLf_JDPJuRAUApjvwNJZ7x3Wqnem1e5RUVCjJ7VWow81-lCjJzV6UtuQfLNvsSlarP7m9mIC8HEHPJgGH_-3rrq8u7gOpxCPd3ETNG2f4kGfynKep-rbzZlKZ4vzJLm7VONwjnd8ra3Sq_Af1O0XFooCSBqGDPw32EG5Fg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>69338810</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of Five Different Bone Resorption Markers in Osteosarcoma-Bearing Dogs, Normal Dogs, and Dogs with Orthopedic Diseases</title><source>Wiley Online Library Open Access</source><creator>Lucas, P.W ; Fan, T.M ; Garrett, L.D ; Griffon, D.J ; Wypij, J.M</creator><creatorcontrib>Lucas, P.W ; Fan, T.M ; Garrett, L.D ; Griffon, D.J ; Wypij, J.M</creatorcontrib><description>Background: Various bone resorption markers in humans are useful for supporting the diagnosis of malignant skeletal pathology, with certain bone resorption markers appearing to be more discriminatory for detecting cancer‐induced osteolysis than others. Canine osteosarcoma (OSA) is characterized by focal bone destruction, but a systematic investigation for determining which bone resorption marker best supports the diagnosis of OSA in dogs has not been reported. Hypothesis: Dogs with OSA will have increased concentrations of bone resorption markers compared with healthy dogs and dogs with orthopedic disorders. Differences will exist among various bone resorption markers for their ability to support the diagnosis of malignant osteolysis in dogs with OSA. Animals: Single time point, cross‐sectional, cohort study including dogs with OSA (n = 20) or orthopedic disorders (n = 20) and healthy dogs (n = 22). Methods: Basal concentrations of urine and serum N‐telopeptide (NTx), urine and serum C‐telopeptide (CTx), and urine deoxypyridinoline (DPD) were compared among all 3 groups. Results: Compared with healthy dogs and dogs with orthopedic disorders, urine NTx, serum NTx, and serum CTx concentrations were significantly increased in dogs with OSA. For urine NTx and serum NTx, the calculated lower and upper 95% confidence limits in dogs with OSA did not overlap with dogs diagnosed with orthopedic disorders or healthy dogs. Conclusions and clinical importance: Of the markers evaluated in this study, urine NTx and serum NTx appear to be the most discriminatory resorption markers supporting the diagnosis of focal malignant osteolysis in dogs with OSA.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0891-6640</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-1676</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1939-1676.2008.0134.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 18564220</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Malden, USA: Blackwell Publishing Inc</publisher><subject>Animals ; Biomarkers - blood ; Biomarkers - urine ; bone diseases ; Bone pain ; bone resorption ; Bone Resorption - metabolism ; Canine cancer ; Circulating surrogate markers ; Dog Diseases - metabolism ; Dogs ; Female ; Focal malignant osteolysis ; Male ; Osteoarthritis - metabolism ; Osteoarthritis - veterinary ; osteosarcoma ; Osteosarcoma - metabolism ; Osteosarcoma - veterinary</subject><ispartof>Journal of veterinary internal medicine, 2008-07, Vol.22 (4), p.1008-1013</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2008 by the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5074-3d2805232ec8b57330f6b9498976ace4b0ab59bc8d8207f09a3c299bbe939b083</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5074-3d2805232ec8b57330f6b9498976ace4b0ab59bc8d8207f09a3c299bbe939b083</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1939-1676.2008.0134.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1939-1676.2008.0134.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,11541,27901,27902,45550,45551,46027,46451</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111%2Fj.1939-1676.2008.0134.x$$EView_record_in_Wiley-Blackwell$$FView_record_in_$$GWiley-Blackwell</linktorsrc><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18564220$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lucas, P.W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fan, T.M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Garrett, L.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Griffon, D.J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wypij, J.M</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of Five Different Bone Resorption Markers in Osteosarcoma-Bearing Dogs, Normal Dogs, and Dogs with Orthopedic Diseases</title><title>Journal of veterinary internal medicine</title><addtitle>J Vet Intern Med</addtitle><description>Background: Various bone resorption markers in humans are useful for supporting the diagnosis of malignant skeletal pathology, with certain bone resorption markers appearing to be more discriminatory for detecting cancer‐induced osteolysis than others. Canine osteosarcoma (OSA) is characterized by focal bone destruction, but a systematic investigation for determining which bone resorption marker best supports the diagnosis of OSA in dogs has not been reported. Hypothesis: Dogs with OSA will have increased concentrations of bone resorption markers compared with healthy dogs and dogs with orthopedic disorders. Differences will exist among various bone resorption markers for their ability to support the diagnosis of malignant osteolysis in dogs with OSA. Animals: Single time point, cross‐sectional, cohort study including dogs with OSA (n = 20) or orthopedic disorders (n = 20) and healthy dogs (n = 22). Methods: Basal concentrations of urine and serum N‐telopeptide (NTx), urine and serum C‐telopeptide (CTx), and urine deoxypyridinoline (DPD) were compared among all 3 groups. Results: Compared with healthy dogs and dogs with orthopedic disorders, urine NTx, serum NTx, and serum CTx concentrations were significantly increased in dogs with OSA. For urine NTx and serum NTx, the calculated lower and upper 95% confidence limits in dogs with OSA did not overlap with dogs diagnosed with orthopedic disorders or healthy dogs. Conclusions and clinical importance: Of the markers evaluated in this study, urine NTx and serum NTx appear to be the most discriminatory resorption markers supporting the diagnosis of focal malignant osteolysis in dogs with OSA.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Biomarkers - blood</subject><subject>Biomarkers - urine</subject><subject>bone diseases</subject><subject>Bone pain</subject><subject>bone resorption</subject><subject>Bone Resorption - metabolism</subject><subject>Canine cancer</subject><subject>Circulating surrogate markers</subject><subject>Dog Diseases - metabolism</subject><subject>Dogs</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Focal malignant osteolysis</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Osteoarthritis - metabolism</subject><subject>Osteoarthritis - veterinary</subject><subject>osteosarcoma</subject><subject>Osteosarcoma - metabolism</subject><subject>Osteosarcoma - veterinary</subject><issn>0891-6640</issn><issn>1939-1676</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkktv1DAURiMEotPCX6BewYYM13YetsSGmXb6UNuRgJal5SQ3Uw9JHOwMnS755zjMqOwQ3vih890r3eMoOqYwpWF9WE-p5DKmWZ5NGYCYAuXJdPssmjy9P48mICSNsyyBg-jQ-zUAS9M0fxkdUJFmCWMwiX7NbdtrZ7ztiK3JwvxEcmLqGh12A5nZDsln9Nb1gwnEtXbf0XliOrL0A1qvXWlbHc8wlOhW5MSu_HtyY12rm_1Fd9WfE3kwwz1ZuuHe9liZMnTxqD36V9GLWjceX-_3o-h2cfp1fh5fLc8u5p-u4jKFPIl5xQSkjDMsRZHmnEOdFTKRQuaZLjEpQBepLEpRCQZ5DVLzkklZFBgGUoDgR9G7Xd3e2R8b9INqjS-xaXSHduOVBMY5TXIWyLf_JDPJuRAUApjvwNJZ7x3Wqnem1e5RUVCjJ7VWow81-lCjJzV6UtuQfLNvsSlarP7m9mIC8HEHPJgGH_-3rrq8u7gOpxCPd3ETNG2f4kGfynKep-rbzZlKZ4vzJLm7VONwjnd8ra3Sq_Af1O0XFooCSBqGDPw32EG5Fg</recordid><startdate>200807</startdate><enddate>200807</enddate><creator>Lucas, P.W</creator><creator>Fan, T.M</creator><creator>Garrett, L.D</creator><creator>Griffon, D.J</creator><creator>Wypij, J.M</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Inc</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7QP</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200807</creationdate><title>Comparison of Five Different Bone Resorption Markers in Osteosarcoma-Bearing Dogs, Normal Dogs, and Dogs with Orthopedic Diseases</title><author>Lucas, P.W ; Fan, T.M ; Garrett, L.D ; Griffon, D.J ; Wypij, J.M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5074-3d2805232ec8b57330f6b9498976ace4b0ab59bc8d8207f09a3c299bbe939b083</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Biomarkers - blood</topic><topic>Biomarkers - urine</topic><topic>bone diseases</topic><topic>Bone pain</topic><topic>bone resorption</topic><topic>Bone Resorption - metabolism</topic><topic>Canine cancer</topic><topic>Circulating surrogate markers</topic><topic>Dog Diseases - metabolism</topic><topic>Dogs</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Focal malignant osteolysis</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Osteoarthritis - metabolism</topic><topic>Osteoarthritis - veterinary</topic><topic>osteosarcoma</topic><topic>Osteosarcoma - metabolism</topic><topic>Osteosarcoma - veterinary</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lucas, P.W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fan, T.M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Garrett, L.D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Griffon, D.J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wypij, J.M</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Calcium &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Journal of veterinary internal medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lucas, P.W</au><au>Fan, T.M</au><au>Garrett, L.D</au><au>Griffon, D.J</au><au>Wypij, J.M</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of Five Different Bone Resorption Markers in Osteosarcoma-Bearing Dogs, Normal Dogs, and Dogs with Orthopedic Diseases</atitle><jtitle>Journal of veterinary internal medicine</jtitle><addtitle>J Vet Intern Med</addtitle><date>2008-07</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>22</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>1008</spage><epage>1013</epage><pages>1008-1013</pages><issn>0891-6640</issn><eissn>1939-1676</eissn><abstract>Background: Various bone resorption markers in humans are useful for supporting the diagnosis of malignant skeletal pathology, with certain bone resorption markers appearing to be more discriminatory for detecting cancer‐induced osteolysis than others. Canine osteosarcoma (OSA) is characterized by focal bone destruction, but a systematic investigation for determining which bone resorption marker best supports the diagnosis of OSA in dogs has not been reported. Hypothesis: Dogs with OSA will have increased concentrations of bone resorption markers compared with healthy dogs and dogs with orthopedic disorders. Differences will exist among various bone resorption markers for their ability to support the diagnosis of malignant osteolysis in dogs with OSA. Animals: Single time point, cross‐sectional, cohort study including dogs with OSA (n = 20) or orthopedic disorders (n = 20) and healthy dogs (n = 22). Methods: Basal concentrations of urine and serum N‐telopeptide (NTx), urine and serum C‐telopeptide (CTx), and urine deoxypyridinoline (DPD) were compared among all 3 groups. Results: Compared with healthy dogs and dogs with orthopedic disorders, urine NTx, serum NTx, and serum CTx concentrations were significantly increased in dogs with OSA. For urine NTx and serum NTx, the calculated lower and upper 95% confidence limits in dogs with OSA did not overlap with dogs diagnosed with orthopedic disorders or healthy dogs. Conclusions and clinical importance: Of the markers evaluated in this study, urine NTx and serum NTx appear to be the most discriminatory resorption markers supporting the diagnosis of focal malignant osteolysis in dogs with OSA.</abstract><cop>Malden, USA</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Inc</pub><pmid>18564220</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1939-1676.2008.0134.x</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext_linktorsrc
identifier ISSN: 0891-6640
ispartof Journal of veterinary internal medicine, 2008-07, Vol.22 (4), p.1008-1013
issn 0891-6640
1939-1676
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_902331472
source Wiley Online Library Open Access
subjects Animals
Biomarkers - blood
Biomarkers - urine
bone diseases
Bone pain
bone resorption
Bone Resorption - metabolism
Canine cancer
Circulating surrogate markers
Dog Diseases - metabolism
Dogs
Female
Focal malignant osteolysis
Male
Osteoarthritis - metabolism
Osteoarthritis - veterinary
osteosarcoma
Osteosarcoma - metabolism
Osteosarcoma - veterinary
title Comparison of Five Different Bone Resorption Markers in Osteosarcoma-Bearing Dogs, Normal Dogs, and Dogs with Orthopedic Diseases
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-30T13%3A17%3A26IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_24P&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20Five%20Different%20Bone%20Resorption%20Markers%20in%20Osteosarcoma-Bearing%20Dogs,%20Normal%20Dogs,%20and%20Dogs%20with%20Orthopedic%20Diseases&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20veterinary%20internal%20medicine&rft.au=Lucas,%20P.W&rft.date=2008-07&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1008&rft.epage=1013&rft.pages=1008-1013&rft.issn=0891-6640&rft.eissn=1939-1676&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1939-1676.2008.0134.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_24P%3E69338810%3C/proquest_24P%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=69338810&rft_id=info:pmid/18564220&rfr_iscdi=true