| Literature DB >> 27579896 |
Vibe Skov1, Mark Burton2, Mads Thomassen2, Thomas Stauffer Larsen3, Caroline H Riley1, Ann Brinch Madelung4, Lasse Kjær1, Henrik Bondo4, Inger Stamp4, Mats Ehinger5, Rasmus Dahl-Sørensen1, Nana Brochmann1, Karsten Nielsen6, Jürgen Thiele7, Morten K Jensen1, Ole Weis Bjerrum8, Torben A Kruse2, Hans Carl Hasselbalch1.
Abstract
Recent studies have shown that a large proportion of patients classified as essential thrombocythemia (ET) actually have early primary prefibrotic myelofibrosis (prePMF), which implies an inferior prognosis as compared to patients being diagnosed with so-called genuine or true ET. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) 2008 classification, bone marrow histology is a major component in the distinction between these disease entities. However, the differential diagnosis between them may be challenging and several studies have not been able to distinguish between them. Most lately, it has been argued that simple blood tests, including the leukocyte count and plasma lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) may be useful tools to separate genuine ET from prePMF, the latter disease entity more often being featured by anemia, leukocytosis and elevated LDH. Whole blood gene expression profiling was performed in 17 and 9 patients diagnosed with ET and PMF, respectively. Using elevated LDH obtained at the time of diagnosis as a marker of prePMF, a 7-gene signature was identified which correctly predicted the prePMF group with a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 89%. The 7 genes included MPO, CEACAM8, CRISP3, MS4A3, CEACAM6, HEMGN, and MMP8, which are genes known to be involved in inflammation, cell adhesion, differentiation and proliferation. Evaluation of bone marrow biopsies and the 7-gene signature showed a concordance rate of 71%, 79%, 62%, and 38%. Our 7-gene signature may be a useful tool to differentiate between genuine ET and prePMF but needs to be validated in a larger cohort of "ET" patients.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27579896 PMCID: PMC5007012 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0161570
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Outline of the classification procedure using SVM and LOOCV.
The classification model is built on the 7 genes. The optimal model was selected and classification accuracy determined.
Patient characteristics.
| Number | Age | Gender | JAK2V617F | V617 | Therapy | LDH | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (range) | (m/f) | (+/-) | (%) | ||||
| Genuine ET | 9 | 62 | 2/7 | 5/4 | 22.1 | BU = 1 | Normal |
| (49–85) | (0.3–67) | ANA = 3 | |||||
| HU = 4 | |||||||
| IFN = 1 | |||||||
| PrePMF | 8 | 65.3 | 5/3 | 4/4 | 21 | HU = 6 | Elevated |
| (35–85) | (0.1–58) | ANA = 2 |
Patients are divided into the genuine ET or prePMF group according to the LDH value.
BU = busulphan; ANA = anagrelide; HU = hydroxyurea; IFN = interferon-alpha. LDH = lactate dehydrogenase. Age and V617F are mean and range at the time of blood sampling for gene expression profiling studies. No significant difference in age and V617F % was observed. LDH values at the time of diagnosis.
Fig 2Classification performance of the 7-gene signature in 17 ET patients using LOOCV and SVM.
The y-axis shows the probability of developing preMF. The x-axis shows the sample number. Red circles to the left of the vertical line represent patients in the prePMF group and blue circles to the right represent patients in the genuine ET group. Red circles above the horizontal line to the left are correctly predicted patients with prePMF and blue circles below the line to the right are correctly classified as genuine ET patients. Circles below the line to the left and above the line to the right are misclassified patients. Patients are divided according to the LDH value at the time of diagnosis. Balanced accuracy = 94%.
Concordance between classification and bone marrow evaluation.
| Classification (LDH) | Bone marrow evaluation | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pathologist 1 | Pathologist 2 | Pathologist 3 | Pathologist 4 | ||||||||||
| ET | PV | prePMF | ET | PV | prePMF | ET | PV | prePMF | ET | PV | prePMF | ||
| ET | 6 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| preMF | 3 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 4 | |
The concordance between the classification and hematopathologist 1, 2, 3, and 4 was 71%, 79%, 62%, and 38%. Three bone marrow biopsies were not suitable for analysis and therefore excluded from the study. Furthermore, pathologist 3 and 4 classified one of the ET bone marrow biopsies as unsuitable. In total, 14 bone marrow biopsies were evaluated by pathologist 1 and 2, and 13 bone marrow biopsies were evaluated by pathologist 3 and 4.
Annotation of the 7 genes.
| Gene Symbol | Gene Title | Functional annotation |
|---|---|---|
| MPO | myeloperoxidase | defense response, oxidative stress, inflammation |
| CEACAM8 | carcinoembryonic antigen-related cell adhesion molecule 8 | immune response, cell adhesion |
| CRISP3 | cysteine-rich secretory protein 3 | immune response, inflammation |
| MS4A3 | membrane-spanning 4-domains, subfamily A, member 3 | cell cycle regulator |
| HEMGN | hemogen | cell differentiation and proliferation |
| MMP8 | matrix metallopeptidase 8 (neutrophil collagenase) | inflammation, cell differentiation and proliferation |
| CEACAM6 | carcinoembryonic antigen-related cell adhesion molecule 6 | cell-cell signaling, inflammation, angiogenesis |
Fig 3The figure illustrates the network from IPA software analysis.
The 7 genes are shown in red. The top functions of the network are inflammatory response, cellular movement and immune cell trafficking. Genes are represented as nodes and the relationship between genes are represented as edges. Solid lines with an arrow: acts on molecule; dashed lines: indirect interaction; solid line: direct interaction.