PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 8, 2026JGH Open0 citationsOpen Access

Effect of Disease Extent on Leucine‐Rich α2 ‐Glycoprotein as a Marker for Endoscopic Mucosal Healing in Patients With Ulcerative Colitis

View Full Paper
SKShogo KitahataMSMai SaitoYKYuka Kimura

Key Points

  • This research aims to assess how the performance of leucine-rich α2-glycoprotein (LRG) as a biomarker for ulcerative colitis varies with disease extent.
  • Evaluated serum biomarker LRG and other biomarkers in 171 ulcerative colitis patients.
  • Categorized patients into two groups: pancolitis and left-sided colitis with proctitis.
  • Measured the correlation between biomarkers and endoscopic activity.
  • LRG showed similar accuracy to fecal markers in predicting healing in pancolitis (AUC: 0.92).
  • Fecal markers outperformed LRG for predicting healing in left-sided colitis (AUC: 0.66 for LRG).
  • Study recommends fecal markers for left-sided colitis and LRG for pancolitis when fecal tests aren't feasible.

Abstract

ABSTRACT Aims To determine whether the performance of leucine‐rich α2‐glycoprotein (LRG) as a biomarker for disease activity in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) may depend on the extent of the disease. Methods and Results We evaluated the correlation between various biomarkers, including the serum biomarker LRG, and endoscopic activity in 171 patients with UC. Patients were categorized into two groups based on disease extent: patients with pancolitis and those with left‐sided colitis and proctitis. LRG demonstrated similar diagnostic accuracy compared to fecal markers in patients with UC exhibiting pancolitis (area under the curve AUC for predicting endoscopic mucosal healing: LRG, 0.92; fecal immunochemical testing FIT, 0.95; and fecal calprotectin Fcal, 0.96) (FIT vs. LRG, p = 0.886; Fcal vs. LRG, p = 0.412). Conversely, for patients with left‐sided colitis and proctitis, fecal markers outperformed LRG in predicting endoscopic mucosal healing (AUC: LRG, 0.66; FIT, 0.94; and Fcal, 0.92) (FIT vs. LRG, p < 0.001; Fcal vs. LRG, p = 0.004). Conclusion Our results support selecting biomarkers according to disease extent for the management of inflammatory bowel disease. In patients with UC and pancolitis, LRG is a viable alternative when fecal samples are not feasible. Conversely, for patients with left‐sided colitis and proctitis, fecal markers with high diagnostic accuracy are recommended.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Kitahata et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/698827670fc35cd7a88462c0https://doi.org/10.1002/jgh3.70341
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper