C Oakman1, L Tenori2, W M Claudino1, S Cappadona1, S Nepi2, A Battaglia1, P Bernini3, E Zafarana1, E Saccenti3, M Fornier4, P G Morris4, L Biganzoli1, C Luchinat5, I Bertini5, A Di Leo6. 1. Department of Oncology, "Sandro Pitigliani" Medical Oncology Unit, Hospital of Prato, Istituto Toscano Tumori, Prato. 2. Magnetic Resonance Center (CERM), University of Florence, Sesto Fiorentino; FiorGen Foundation, Sesto Fiorentino, Italy. 3. Magnetic Resonance Center (CERM), University of Florence, Sesto Fiorentino. 4. Breast Cancer Medicine Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA. 5. Magnetic Resonance Center (CERM), University of Florence, Sesto Fiorentino; Department of Chemistry, University of Florence, Sesto Fiorentino, Italy. 6. Department of Oncology, "Sandro Pitigliani" Medical Oncology Unit, Hospital of Prato, Istituto Toscano Tumori, Prato. Electronic address: adileo@usl4.toscana.it.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prognostic tools in early breast cancer are inadequate. The evolving field of metabolomics may allow more accurate identification of patients with residual micrometastases. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-four early breast cancer patients with pre- and postoperative serum samples had metabolomic assessment by nuclear magnetic resonance. Fifty-one metastatic patients served as control. Differential clustering was identified and used to calculate individual early patient 'metabolomic risk', calculated as inverse distance of each early patient from the metastatic cluster barycenter. Metabolomic risk was compared with Adjuvantionline 10-year mortality assessment. RESULTS: Innate serum metabolomic differences exist between early and metastatic patients. Preoperative patients were identified with 75% sensitivity, 69% specificity and 72% predictive accuracy. Comparison with Adjuvantionline revealed discordance. Of 21 patients assessed as high risk by Adjuvantionline, 10 (48%) and 6 (29%) were at high risk by metabolomics in pre- and postoperative settings, respectively. Of 23 low-risk patients by Adjuvantionline, 11 (48%) preoperative and 20 (87%) postoperative patients were at low risk by metabolomics. CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies metabolomic discrimination between early and metastatic breast cancer. Micrometastatic disease may account for metabolomic misclassification of some early patients as metastatic. Metabolomics identifies more patients as low relapse risk compared with Adjuvantionline. Further exploration of this metabolomic fingerprint is warranted.
BACKGROUND: Prognostic tools in early breast cancer are inadequate. The evolving field of metabolomics may allow more accurate identification of patients with residual micrometastases. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-four early breast cancerpatients with pre- and postoperative serum samples had metabolomic assessment by nuclear magnetic resonance. Fifty-one metastatic patients served as control. Differential clustering was identified and used to calculate individual early patient 'metabolomic risk', calculated as inverse distance of each early patient from the metastatic cluster barycenter. Metabolomic risk was compared with Adjuvantionline 10-year mortality assessment. RESULTS: Innate serum metabolomic differences exist between early and metastatic patients. Preoperative patients were identified with 75% sensitivity, 69% specificity and 72% predictive accuracy. Comparison with Adjuvantionline revealed discordance. Of 21 patients assessed as high risk by Adjuvantionline, 10 (48%) and 6 (29%) were at high risk by metabolomics in pre- and postoperative settings, respectively. Of 23 low-risk patients by Adjuvantionline, 11 (48%) preoperative and 20 (87%) postoperative patients were at low risk by metabolomics. CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies metabolomic discrimination between early and metastatic breast cancer. Micrometastatic disease may account for metabolomic misclassification of some early patients as metastatic. Metabolomics identifies more patients as low relapse risk compared with Adjuvantionline. Further exploration of this metabolomic fingerprint is warranted.
Authors: Christopher D Hart; Alessia Vignoli; Leonardo Tenori; Gemma Leonora Uy; Ta Van To; Clement Adebamowo; Syed Mozammel Hossain; Laura Biganzoli; Emanuela Risi; Richard R Love; Claudio Luchinat; Angelo Di Leo Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-01-12 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Hua Zhao; Jie Shen; Steven C Moore; Yuanqing Ye; Xifeng Wu; Francisco J Esteva; Debasish Tripathy; Wong-Ho Chow Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2019-02-15 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Siwei Wei; Lingyan Liu; Jian Zhang; Jeremiah Bowers; G A Nagana Gowda; Harald Seeger; Tanja Fehm; Hans J Neubauer; Ulrich Vogel; Susan E Clare; Daniel Raftery Journal: Mol Oncol Date: 2012-10-25 Impact factor: 6.603
Authors: Jeremy K Nicholson; Elaine Holmes; James M Kinross; Ara W Darzi; Zoltan Takats; John C Lindon Journal: Nature Date: 2012-11-15 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: L Goodwin Burgess; Karan Uppal; Douglas I Walker; Rachel M Roberson; ViLinh Tran; Megan B Parks; Emily A Wade; Alexandra T May; Allison C Umfress; Kelli L Jarrell; Brooklyn O C Stanley; John Kuchtey; Rachel W Kuchtey; Dean P Jones; Milam A Brantley Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 4.799