| Literature DB >> 27560555 |
Farshad Farshidfar1,2, Aalim M Weljie3,4, Karen A Kopciuk5,6, Robert Hilsden7,8, S Elizabeth McGregor2,6, W Donald Buie1, Anthony MacLean1, Hans J Vogel3, Oliver F Bathe1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Timely diagnosis and classification of colorectal cancer (CRC) are hindered by unsatisfactory clinical assays. Our aim was to construct a blood-based biomarker series using a single assay, suitable for CRC detection, prognostication and staging.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27560555 PMCID: PMC5046202 DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2016.243
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Br J Cancer ISSN: 0007-0920 Impact factor: 7.640
Demographics and clinical factors of patients and controls
| 254 | 31 | 47 | 60 | 71 | 142 | |
| Age, mean (s.d.) | 61.7 (9.3) | 59.5 (6.0) | 68.6 (10.6) | 68.6 (12.4) | 64.9 (13.1) | 63.1 (11.5) |
| Presampling chemotherapy | — | — | 13 (28) | 8 (13) | 11 (15) | 50 (35) |
| Sex | ||||||
| Male | 148 (58) | 21(68) | 32 (68) | 31(52) | 41 (58) | 97 (68) |
| Female | 106 (42) | 10 (32) | 15 (32) | 29 (48) | 30 (42) | 45 (32) |
| Primary site | ||||||
| Colon | — | — | 15 | 29 | 41 | — |
| Rectum | — | — | 30 | 19 | 29 | — |
| Unknown | — | — | 2 | 12 | 1 | — |
| Differentiation | ||||||
| Poor | — | — | 2 | 7 | 9 | 7 |
| Moderate | — | — | 27 | 39 | 42 | 50 |
| Well | — | — | 11 | 6 | 17 | 16 |
| Unspecified | — | — | 7 | 8 | 3 | 69 |
| Staging T | ||||||
| T1 | — | — | 9 | — | 4 | — |
| T2 | — | — | 32 | — | 13 | — |
| T3 | — | — | — | 45 | 34 | — |
| T4 | — | — | — | 9 | 11 | — |
| Staging N | ||||||
| N1 | — | — | — | — | 39 (N1a=21) (N1b=18) | 22 |
| N2 | — | — | — | — | 22 (N2a=13) (N2b=9) | 25 |
| Tumour dimension (cm) | ||||||
| Largest dimension, mean (s.d.) | — | — | 3.44 (1.96) | 5.10 (1.95) | 4.62 (2.12) | 2.99 (1.91) |
| Min–Max | 0.5–12 | 2–10 | 0.3–10.1 | 0.5–9.9 |
Numbers within parentheses represent percent, unless otherwise noted.
Figure 1The metabolomic profile of CRC patients as determined by GC-MS is distinct from disease-free controls. (A) Principal component analysis scores scatter plot of CRC and matched controls. (B) Supervised (O2PLS-DA) analysis scores scatter plot of CRC and matched controls. (C) Coefficient column plot for OPLS-DA of CRC vs matched control, illustrating changes in individual compounds. (D) Receiver-operating characteristic curve curve for validation of metabolomic classification of CRC and control, in an independent sample set (NM, not matched (unidentified)).
Figure 2Gender-specific variations in metabolomic profile. The column plot consists of individual metabolites comprising the diagnostic model for CRC. Column length is related to the degree of statistical significance (expressed as negative log of P-value) based on univariate analysis.
Figure 3Metabolomic profile of colorectal adenoma, as determined by GC-MS (A–C). (A) Principal component analysis comparison of the GC-MS spectra of colorectal adenomas and disease-free controls. (B) Supervised (OPLS-DA) analysis scores scatter plot of adenomas and controls, from GC-MS spectra. (C) Receiver-operating characteristic curve curve of the GC-MS-derived biomarker for adenoma, from internal cross-validation.
Figure 4Metabolomic changes related to disease stage. (A) Scores scatter plot of supervised (OPLS-DA) analysis illustrating that the metabolomic profile of locoregional CRC is dependent on its T-staging status. (B) Box and whisker plot of OPLS-DA scores for each of four different T statuses. Points shown are out of the range of 2.5–97.5%. (C) Heatmap representing relative concentrations for each of the 45 compounds composing the OPLS-DA model for differentiation of T status. (D) Supervised OPLS-DA scores scatter plot representing the alterations in the metabolomic profile of lymph node-positive vs lymph node-negative CRC.
Figure 5Evaluation of the capability of the metabolomic profile to separate stage II patients by prognosis. (A) Orthogonal partial least squares-discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA) scores scatter plot demonstrating differences in the metabolomic signature in good prognosis and bad prognosis stage II patients. (B) Analysis of stage II patients to determine whether their profile is more stage I-like or stage III-like, using the OPLS-DA predictive scores derived from the model distinguishing these two stages. Red triangles represent individuals who had a recurrence.