| Literature DB >> 27739449 |
Ying Swan Ho1, Lian Yee Yip1, Nurhidayah Basri1, Vivian Su Hui Chong1, Chin Chye Teo1, Eddy Tan1, Kah Ling Lim2, Gek San Tan2, Xulei Yang3, Si Yong Yeo3, Mariko Si Yue Koh4, Anantham Devanand4, Angela Takano4, Eng Huat Tan5, Daniel Shao Weng Tan5,6, Tony Kiat Hon Lim2,6.
Abstract
Cytology and histology forms the cornerstone for the diagnosis of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) but obtaining sufficient tumour cells or tissue biopsies for these tests remains a challenge. We investigate the lipidome of lung pleural effusion (PE) for unique metabolic signatures to discriminate benign versus malignant PE and EGFR versus non-EGFR malignant subgroups to identify novel diagnostic markers that is independent of tumour cell availability. Using liquid chromatography mass spectrometry, we profiled the lipidomes of the PE of 30 benign and 41 malignant cases with or without EGFR mutation. Unsupervised principal component analysis revealed distinctive differences between the lipidomes of benign and malignant PE as well as between EGFR mutants and non-EGFR mutants. Docosapentaenoic acid and Docosahexaenoic acid gave superior sensitivity and specificity for detecting NSCLC when used singly. Additionally, several 20- and 22- carbon polyunsaturated fatty acids and phospholipid species were significantly elevated in the EGFR mutants compared to non-EGFR mutants. A 7-lipid panel showed great promise in the stratification of EGFR from non-EGFR malignant PE. Our data revealed novel lipid candidate markers in the non-cellular fraction of PE that holds potential to aid the diagnosis of benign, EGFR mutation positive and negative NSCLC.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27739449 PMCID: PMC5064315 DOI: 10.1038/srep35110
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Clinical characteristics of benign subjects (n = 30) and malignant non-small cell lung cancer patients (n = 41).
| Characteristic | All Patients (n = 71) | Benign (n = 30) | Malignant (n = 41) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | |||
| Male, % | 35 (49.3) | 18 (60.0) | 17 (41.5) |
| Female, % | 36 (50.7) | 12 (40.0) | 24 (58.5) |
| Age at sample collection, years | |||
| Mean ± standard deviation | 67 ± 14 | 63 ± 16 | 69 ± 12 |
| Smoking status | |||
| Smoker (Current/Ex) | 25 | 9 | 16 |
| Non smoker | 46 | 21 | 25 |
| Ethnic group | |||
| Chinese, % | 61 (86.0) | 25 (83.3) | 36 (87.8) |
| Malay, % | 5 (7.0) | 1 (3.3) | 4 (9.8) |
| Indian, % | 4 (5.6) | 3 (10.0) | 1 (2.4) |
| Others, % | 1 (1.4) | 1 (3.3) | 0 (0.0) |
| Histology | |||
| Non-small cell lung adenocarcinoma | 39 (54.9) | ||
| Squamous-cell carcinoma | 1 (1.4) | ||
| Lymphoepithelioma-like lung carcinoma | 1 (1.4) | ||
| Non-malignant | 30 (42.3) | ||
| Cytology assessment | |||
| Positive for malignancy | 32 (45.0) | ||
| Negative for malignancy | 30 (42.3) | ||
| Suspicious/atypical confirmed as malignant based on histology | 9 (12.7) | ||
| Mutation subtypes for malignant cases | |||
| EGFR + | 19 (46.3) | ||
| EGFR − | N.A. | 17 (41.5) | |
| Unknown | 5 (12.2) | ||
| Subtypes for non-malignant cases | |||
| Pneumonia | 22 (73.3) | ||
| Cardiopulmonary congestion | 5 (16.7) | N.A. | |
| Tuberculosis | 3 (10.0) | ||
n, Number of cases; EGFR, Epidermal growth factor receptor.
Figure 1Principal component analysis scores plots for (A) benign (n = 30) and malignant lung PE (n = 36), and the PE of (B) EGFR mutant (n = 19) and non-EGFR mutant (n = 17) collected from the malignant patients. Green, blue and red circles represent the benign, malignant non-EGFR mutant and malignant EGFR mutant PE respectively. (C) Heat map of differential lipid metabolites derived from individual pairwise comparisons between benign, non-EGFR mutant and EGFR mutant PE samples. All represented species are statistically significant (VIP > 1, p-value < 0.05, fold change (FC) ≥ 1.5) for at least one of the pairwise comparisons. Metabolites are grouped according to their lipid classes.
Potential lipid malignancy markers for differentiating the PE of benign and malignant patients with NSCLC and their diagnostic performance.
| Lipid name | Benign vs non-EGFR mutants | Benign vs EGFR mutants | Diagnostic performance as malignancy marker | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ratio | Ratio | AUC | SN (%) | SP (%) | ACC (%) | |
| Hydroxyl FA(16:0) | 1.56 | 1.83 | 0.74 (0.62–0.85) | 73.17 | 63.33 | 69.01 |
| FA(14:2) | 1.64 | 2.54 | 0.77 (0.65–0.88) | 78.05 | 70.00 | 74.65 |
| FA(18:1) | 1.80 | 1.71 | 0.76 (0.65–0.88) | 70.73 | 73.33 | 71.83 |
| FA(18:2) | 1.65 | 1.95 | 0.81 (0.70–0.91) | 80.49 | 76.67 | 78.87 |
| FA(18:3) | 1.53 | 1.81 | 0.74 (0.63–0.86) | 70.73 | 70.00 | 70.42 |
| FA(20:5) | 1.82 | 4.43 | 0.79 (0.68–0.90) | 75.61 | 73.33 | 74.65 |
| FA(22:4) | 2.20 | 2.33 | 0.80 (0.69–0.90) | 75.61 | 73.33 | 74.65 |
| FA(22:5) | 2.46 | 6.11 | 0.87 (0.79–0.96) | 82.93 | 83.33 | 83.10 |
| FA(22:6) | 1.89 | 3.17 | 0.87 (0.79–0.95) | 82.93 | 83.33 | 83.10 |
| GalCer(d40:1)/GlcCer(d40:1) | 1.82 | 1.51 | 0.72 (0.60–0.85) | 80.49 | 60.00 | 71.83 |
| SM(d44:1) | 1.53 | 1.53 | 0.73 (0.62–0.85) | 63.33 | 69.01 | 64.79 |
| SM(d42:2) | 1.64 | 1.74 | 0.66 (0.54–0.79) | 63.33 | 64.79 | 69.01 |
aIndividual abbreviated lipid names are provided based on the following convention: Lipid class (total number of carbons: total number of double bonds).
bRatio calculated relative to benign.
cAUC value obtained based on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis with 95% confidence interval range provided in parentheses.
VIP, variable importance for projection value; AUC, area under curve for ROC analysis; SN, sensitivity; SP, specificity; ACC, accuracy; FA, fatty acid; GalCer/GlcCer, galactosylceramide/glucosylceramide; SM, sphingomyelin.
Listed markers satisfy statistical threshold (ratio > 1.5, p-value < 0.05, VIP > 1) in both pair-wise comparisons between EGFR (n = 19) and non-EGFR mutant (n = 17) cases with benign PE (n = 30).
Figure 2Diagnostic performance of lipid markers in discriminating pleural effusion from malignant NSCLC patients (n = 41) from benign subjects (n = 30).
ROC curves of malignant versus benign subjects for individual PE lipid markers in the class of (A) fatty acids (B) sphingolipids. (C) ROC curves of malignant versus benign subjects for an optimal combination of 4 lipid malignancy markers from SVM modelling.
Figure 3Dot plots describing the relative levels of (A) FA(22:6), (B) FA(20:5) in benign (green), non-EGFR mutant (blue) and EGFR mutant (red) PE samples. p-value calculated based on Mann-Whitney U test, where *denotes p < 0.05, **denotes p < 0.01, ***denotes p < 0.001. ROC curves of non-EGFR mutant versus EGFR mutant subjects for individual PE lipid markers in the class of (C) fatty acids and (D) phospholipids. (E) ROC curves of non-EGFR mutant versus EGFR mutant subjects for an optimal combination of 7 lipid malignancy markers from SVM modelling.
Lipid candidates capable of distinguishing EGFR mutation status in the PE of NSCLC patients and their diagnostic performance.
| Non-EGFR vs EGFR mutants | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lipid name | Ratio (relative to non-EGFR) | AUC | SN (%) | SP (%) | ACC (%) |
| FA(20:3) | 1.67 | 0.68 (0.50–0.87) | 68.42 | 70.59 | 69.44 |
| FA(20:5) | 2.43 | 0.68 (0.50–0.87) | 89.47 | 58.82 | 75.00 |
| FA(22:5) | 2.49 | 0.78 (0.62–0.94) | 73.68 | 70.59 | 72.22 |
| FA(22:6) | 1.68 | 0.75 (0.58–0.93) | 89.47 | 64.71 | 77.78 |
| LysoPEtn(P-16:0) | 1.57 | 0.70 (0.52–0.88) | 73.68 | 70.59 | 72.22 |
| PC(41:6) | 2.60 | 0.70 (0.51–0.88) | 63.16 | 82.35 | 72.22 |
| PEtn(P-36:5) | 2.30 | 0.67 (0.48–0.85) | 63.16 | 70.59 | 66.67 |
aIndividual abbreviated lipid names are provided based on the following convention: Lipid class (total number of carbons: total number of double bonds).
bAUC value obtained based on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis with 95% confidence interval range provided in parentheses.
VIP, variable importance for projection value; AUC, area under curve for ROC analysis; SN, sensitivity; SP, specificity; ACC, accuracy; FA, fatty acid; LysoPEtn(P-), ether-linked lysophosphatidylethanolamine; PC, phosphatidylcholine; PEtn(P-), ether-linked phosphatidylethanolamine.
Listed markers satisfy statistical threshold (ratio > 1.5, p-value < 0.05, VIP > 1) in both pair-wise comparisons of EGFR mutant cases with benign PE and non-EGFR mutant cases.