| Literature DB >> 28179577 |
Shin Nishiumi1, Takashi Kobayashi1, Shuichi Kawana2, Yumi Unno2, Takero Sakai2, Koji Okamoto3, Yasuhide Yamada4, Kazuki Sudo4, Taiki Yamaji5, Yutaka Saito6, Yukihide Kanemitsu7, Natsuko Tsuda Okita4, Hiroshi Saito8, Shoichiro Tsugane9, Takeshi Azuma10, Noriyuki Ojima2, Masaru Yoshida10,1,11.
Abstract
In developed countries, the number of patients with colorectal cancer has been increasing, and colorectal cancer is one of the most common causes of cancer death. To improve the quality of life of colorectal cancer patients, it is necessary to establish novel screening methods that would allow early detection of colorectal cancer. We performed metabolome analysis of a plasma sample set from 282 stage 0/I/II colorectal cancer patients and 291 healthy volunteers using gas chromatography/triple-quadrupole mass spectrometry in an attempt to identify metabolite biomarkers of stage 0/I/II colorectal cancer. The colorectal cancer patients included patients with stage 0 (N=79), I (N=80), and II (N=123) in whom invasion and metastasis were absent. Our analytical system detected 64 metabolites in the plasma samples, and the levels of 29 metabolites differed significantly (Bonferroni-corrected p=0.000781) between the patients and healthy volunteers. Based on these results, a multiple logistic regression analysis of various metabolite biomarkers was carried out, and a stage 0/I/II colorectal cancer prediction model was established. The area under the curve, sensitivity, and specificity values of this model for detecting stage 0/I/II colorectal cancer were 0.996, 99.3%, and 93.8%, respectively. The model's sensitivity and specificity values for each disease stage were >90%, and surprisingly, its sensitivity for stage 0, specificity for stage 0, and sensitivity for stage II disease were all 100%. Our predictive model can aid early detection of colorectal cancer and has potential as a novel screening test for cases of colorectal cancer that do not involve lymph node or distant metastasis.Entities:
Keywords: biomarker; colorectal cancer; gas chromatography/triple-quadrupole mass spectrometry; metabolite; metabolomics
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28179577 PMCID: PMC5370027 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.15081
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Characteristics of the colorectal cancer patients and healthy volunteers
| CRC | HV | p-value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | 282 | 291 | ||
| Age (y.o.) | Median | 68 (40-93) | 68 (41-88) | 0.825 |
| Mean | 67.0 | 66.8 | ||
| S.D. | 9.02 | 7.94 | ||
| Sex | Male | 170 | 178 | 0.828 |
| Female | 112 | 113 | ||
| BMI (kg/m2) | Mean | 22.9 | 22.8 | 0.6119 |
| S.D. | 3.62 | 2.82 | ||
| Smoking habits | Current | 52 | 24 | 0.0006 |
| Former | 116 | 118 | ||
| Never | 114 | 149 | ||
| Alcohol consumption | Current | 174 | 198 | 0.1132 |
| Former | 26 | 18 | ||
| Never | 79 | 75 | ||
| N.R. | 3 | 0 | ||
| Medication | Yes | 160 | 202 | 0.0017 |
| No | 122 | 89 | ||
| Tumor (T) | Tis | 79 | ||
| T1 | 53 | |||
| T2 | 27 | |||
| T3 | 119 | |||
| T4a | 2 | |||
| T4b | 2 | |||
| Lymph node (N) | N0 | 282 | ||
| N1/2 | 0 | |||
| Metastasis (M) | M0 | 282 | ||
| M1 | 0 | |||
| Stage | 0 | 79 | ||
| I | 80 | |||
| II | 123 | |||
| Site | C | 33 | ||
| A | 39 | |||
| T | 23 | |||
| D | 11 | |||
| S | 73 | |||
| R | 101 | |||
| P | 2 | |||
| Histology | tub1 | 175 | ||
| tub2 | 91 | |||
| por1 | 2 | |||
| por2 | 1 | |||
| pap | 3 | |||
| muc | 10 |
The p-values for age and BMI were calculated using Welch's t-test. The p-values for sex, smoking habits, alcohol consumption, medication usage, and cancer stage were calculated using Pearson's chi-squared test. CRC: colorectal cancer patients; HV: healthy volunteers; y.o.: years old; BMI: body mass index; S.D.: standard deviation; N.R.: no response; C: cecum; A: ascending colon; T: transverse colon; D: descending colon; S: sigmoid colon; R: rectum; P: sacral promontory.
AUC, sensitivity, and specificity values of the metabolites that exhibited Bonferroni-corrected significant differences
| AUC | Sensitivity | Specificity | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pyruvic acid-meto-TMS | 0.93551 | 87.9% | 90.4% |
| Glycolic acid-2TMS | 0.90352 | 92.6% | 78.0% |
| Lactic acid-2TMS(/SI) | 0.88963 | 82.6% | 82.8% |
| Fumaric acid-2TMS(/SI) | 0.83445 | 74.1% | 80.8% |
| Ornithine-4TMS(/SI) | 0.76751 | 68.8% | 76.3% |
| Sucrose-8TMS | 0.7613 | 74.8% | 66.0% |
| Fructose-meto-5TMS(2) | 0.71667 | 71.6% | 65.3% |
| Arabinose-meto-4TMS | 0.71089 | 65.3% | 69.1% |
| 2-ketoglutaric acid-meto-2TMS | 0.67883 | 64.9% | 66.3% |
| Sorbose-meto-5TMS(1) | 0.66413 | 67.7% | 61.9% |
| Palmitoleic acid-TMS | 0.65756 | 55.3% | 69.4% |
| Tryptophan-3TM(/SI) | 0.6573 | 45.0% | 81.1% |
| Cysteine-3TMS | 0.64901 | 79.1% | 46.4% |
| Xylose-meto-4TMS(2) | 0.6352 | 51.4% | 71.1% |
| 2-aminobutyric acid-2TMS | 0.62659 | 72.7% | 50.5% |
| Lysine-4TMS | 0.62194 | 39.0% | 81.8% |
| Malic acid-3TMS(/SI) | 0.62077 | 42.2% | 77.0% |
| Threitol-4TMS | 0.62045 | 39.0% | 80.4% |
| Maltose-meto-8TMS(1) | 0.38827 | 12.4% | 96.2% |
| Elaidic acid-TMS | 0.6098 | 53.9% | 67.0% |
| Uric acid-4TMS | 0.60658 | 51.1% | 69.4% |
| Isocitric acid-4TMS | 0.60463 | 35.5% | 85.6% |
| meso-erythritol-4TMS | 0.60291 | 42.9% | 79.0% |
| Valine-2TMS(/SI) | 0.595 | 47.2% | 69.4% |
| Leucine-2TMS | 0.59334 | 49.3% | 65.6% |
| 3-hydroxyisovaleric acid-2TMS | 0.59258 | 38.3% | 78.7% |
| Xylitol-5TMS | 0.5882 | 62.8% | 56.4% |
| Arabitol-5TMS | 0.58759 | 57.1% | 60.8% |
| Proline-2TMS | 0.58217 | 54.6% | 61.9% |
A simple linear regression analysis of the metabolites that exhibited Bonferroni-corrected significant differences was performed, and the AUC, sensitivity, and specificity values of these metabolites are shown in Table 2. AUC: area under the curve; TMS: trimethylsilyl group; SI: stable isotope; ‘-TMS’: the number of TMS molecules bound to each metabolite via derivatization; ‘/SI’: the metabolites whose peak intensity values were normalized using the corresponding stable isotopes.
Figure 1The ROC curve and data for the predictive model
The black line on the graph is the ROC curve for the predictive model. The AUC, sensitivity, and specificity values of the predictive model obtained via multiple logistic regression analysis were 0.996, 99.3%, and 93.8%, respectively, and the optimal cut-off value was 0.19. The coefficients, S.E., p-values, and VIF of this predictive model at the intercept and for each variable are shown in the table below the graph. S.E.: standard error; VIF: variance inflation factor; TMS: trimethylsilyl group; SI: stable isotope; ‘-TMS’: the number of TMS molecules bound to each metabolite via derivatization; ‘/SI’: the metabolites whose peak intensity values were normalized using the corresponding stable isotopes.
Sensitivity and specificity of the predictive model and tumor markers
| Stage 0/I/II | Stage 0 | Stage I | Stage II | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity | Model | 99.3% | 100% | 97.5% | 100% |
| CEA | 18.1% | 3.8% | 15.0% | 29.3% | |
| CA19-9 | 9.3% | 6.4% | 6.3% | 13.1% | |
| Specificity | Model | 93.8% | 100% | 91.3% | 91.7% |
| CEA | 96.0% | 92.4% | 97.4% | 97% | |
| CA19-9 | 95.6% | 95.5% | 97.4% | 94.4% |
The sensitivity and specificity values of the predictive model obtained via multiple logistic regression analysis, and CEA and CA19-9, which were selected via simple linear regression analysis, are shown. Sensitivity and specificity were separately evaluated for stage 0-II (0/I/II), stage 0, stage I, and stage II disease. CEA: carcinoembryonic antigen; CA19-9: carbohydrate antigen 19-9.