Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 14, 2025
Assessment of Ovarian Cancer Spheroid Attachment and Invasion of Mesothelial Cells in Real Time
Published on: May 20, 2014
Predicting chemoresponsiveness in epithelial ovarian cancer patients using circulating small extracellular
Emma Gerber1,2, Meshach Asare-Werehene1,2,3,4, Arkadiy Reunov5
1Chronic Disease Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, K1Y 4E9, Canada.
Background:
Resistance to chemotherapy continues to be a challenge when treating epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), contributing to low patient survival rates. While CA125, the conventional EOC biomarker, has been useful in monitoring patients' response to therapy, there are no biomarkers used to predict treatment response prior to chemotherapy. Previous work in vitro showed that plasma gelsolin (pGSN) is highly expressed in chemoresistant EOC cell lines, where it is secreted in small extracellular vesicles (sEVs). Whether sEVs from tumour cells are secreted into the circulation of EOC patients and could be used to predict patient chemoresponsiveness is yet to be determined. This study aims to identify if sEV-pGSN in the circulation could be a predictive biomarker for chemoresistance in EOC.
Methods:
Sandwich ELISA was used to measure pGSN concentrations from plasma samples of 96 EOC patients (primarily high grade serous EOC). sEVs were isolated using ExoQuick ULTRA and characterized using western blot, nanoparticle tracking analysis, and electron microscopy after which pGSN was measured from the sEVs. Patients were stratified as platinum sensitive or resistant groups based on first progression free interval (PFI) of 6 or 12 months.
Results:
Total circulating pGSN was significantly decreased and sEV-pGSN increased in patients with a PFI ≤ 12 months (chemoresistant) compared to those with a PFI > 12 months (chemosensitive). The ratio of total pGSN to sEV-pGSN further differentiated these groups and was a strong predictive marker for chemoresistance (sensitivity: 73.91%, specificity: 72.46%). Predetermined CA125 was not different between chemosensitive and chemoresistant groups and was not predictive of chemoresponsiveness prior to treatment. When CA125 was combined with the ratio of total pGSN/sEV-pGSN, it was a significant predictor of chemoresponsiveness, but the test performance was not as robust as the total pGSN/sEV-pGSN alone.
Conclusions:
Total pGSN/sEV-pGSN was the best predictor of chemoresponsiveness prior to treatment, outperforming the individual biomarkers (CA125, total pGSN, and sEV-pGSN). This multianalyte predictor of chemoresponsiveness could help to inform physicians' treatment and follow up plan at the time of EOC diagnosis, thus improving patients' outcomes.
