Literature DB >> 29100283

Circulating microparticles are prognostic biomarkers in advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients.

Chin-Chou Wang1,2,3, Chia-Cheng Tseng1,4, Huang-Chih Chang1,4, Kuo-Tung Huang1,4, Wen-Feng Fang1,3, Yu-Mu Chen1, Cheng-Ta Yang5, Chang-Chun Hsiao4,6, Meng-Chih Lin1, Chi-Kung Ho2, Hon-Kan Yip6,7,8,9,10.   

Abstract

We investigated whether circulating microparticles (MPs) could serve as prognostic biomarkers in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. We enrolled 25 control subjects and 136 NSCLC patients categorized into disease-progression (DP, n=42) and disease-control (DC, n=94) groups. Flow cytometric analysis showed that levels of four types of circulating microparticles (EDAc-MPs, EDAp-MPs, PDAc-MPs and PDAp-MPs) were higher in the study patients than the control subjects (P < 0.04). DP patients showed poor initially performance status and more non-adenocarcinomas than DC patients. DC patients showed more EGFR mutations and poorer performance to targeted therapy than DP patients (P < 0.01). Three months after therapy, the levels of all four types of circulating MPs were lower in DC than DP patients (P < 0.02), and were comparable to the levels in control subjects. In addition, the levels of circulating MPs after 3 months accurately predicted one-year prognostic outcomes (P < 0.05). This study showed that circulating MPs are valuable prognostic biomarkers in advanced NSCLC patients.

Entities:  

Keywords:  advanced non-small cell lung cancer; disease control; disease progression; microparticles

Year:  2017        PMID: 29100283      PMCID: PMC5652677          DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.18372

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oncotarget        ISSN: 1949-2553


INTRODUCTION

Advanced lung cancer (LC) is a leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide [1-4]. Nearly 95% of all lung cancers are either small cell lung cancer (SCLC) or non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Current treatments include a combination of traditional surgical interventions and adjunctive radiation and chemotherapy. Molecularly targeted drugs for LC include epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR TKI) like gefitinib, erlotinib, and afatinib [5-9], and anaplastic lymphoma kinase tyrosine kinase inhibitors (ALK TKI) like crizotinib [10]. However, the overall long-term survival rate from lung cancer is extremely low [11-14]. Despite advanced technology, nearly 50% of lung cancer patients are diagnosed at an advanced stage [4]. Thus, better understanding of the lung cancer pathogenesis and development of effective molecular and cellular biomarkers [4] are necessary to detect cancer early and improve therapeutic outcomes [15-17]. The development of serum biomarkers like microparticles would be useful to predict prognostic outcomes in LC [18-21]. Microparticles (MPs) or membrane-bound vesicles are small fragments of the plasma membrane released by activated and/or apoptotic cells. The MPs ranging from 0.1 to 1.0μm in size circulate in blood and other body fluids and are known to mediate inflammation and thrombosis [22-31]. Additionally, MPs have differential effects on angiogenesis depending on their origin [22, 26, 28–31]. Microparticles from platelets promote capillary network formation and production of pro-angiogenic factors [22, 24, 28, 30, 32]. In contrast, both endothelial- and lymphocyte-derived MPs possess either pro- or anti-angiogenic properties depending on the stimuli [28, 29]. Circulating MPs are also associated with a wide range of diseases including LC [28, 32–39]. Circulating endothelial-derived activated MPs (EDAc-MPs) were useful in predicting 1-year morality in advanced stage NSCLC patients [20]. However, since majority of the patients had received palliative treatment prior to enrolment in our previous study, the PDAp-MPs (platelet-derived apoptotic MPs), PDAc-MPs (platelet-derived activated MPs), and EDAp-MPs (endothelial-derived apoptotic MPs) were not prognostic [20]. Therefore, we conducted this prospective study by measuring the circulating levels of MPs in advanced stage NSCLC patients to analyze their prognostic outcomes in advanced stage NSCLC patients.

RESULTS

Baseline circulating levels of four types microparticles in study subjects

The circulating levels of the PDAc-MPs, PDAp-MPs, EDAc-MPs and EDAp-MPs were significantly higher in advanced NSCLC patients compared to control subjects. This suggested that the circulating MPs are useful diagnostic biomarkers for advanced NSCLC patients (Table 1 and Figure 1).
Table 1

Comparison of circulating levels of four types microparticles between lung cancer patients and healthy control group

VariablesStudy Group (n=136)*Control Group (n=25)P-value
PDAc-MPs184866.40 ± 723526.4020334.75 ± 25884.620.009
PDAp-MPs30988.10 ± 95402.9013725.08 ± 5401.120.038
EDAc-MPs7196.16 ± 33141.41598.54 ± 582.430.022
EDAp-MPs27171.17 ± 105285.345486.17 ± 4331.440.018

Data are expressed as mean ± SD.

PDAc-MPs = platelet-derived activated microparticles; PDAp-MPs = platelet-derived apoptotic MPs; EDAc-MPs = endothelial-derived activated MPs; EDAp-MPs = endothelial-derived apoptotic MPs.

* indicated the blood sample was drawn prior to treatment.

Figure 1

Comparison of baseline levels of circulating microparticles in the study and control subjects

Circulating levels of (A) Platelet-derived activated MPs (PDAc-MPs; p = 0.009), (B) Platelet-derived apoptotic MPs (PDAp-MPs; p = 0.038), (C) Endothelial-derived activated MPs (EDAc-MPs; p = 0.022) and (D) Endothelial-derived apoptotic MPs (EDAp-MPs; p = 0.018) in study and control subjects. Note: CI = confidence intervals.

Data are expressed as mean ± SD. PDAc-MPs = platelet-derived activated microparticles; PDAp-MPs = platelet-derived apoptotic MPs; EDAc-MPs = endothelial-derived activated MPs; EDAp-MPs = endothelial-derived apoptotic MPs. * indicated the blood sample was drawn prior to treatment.

Comparison of baseline levels of circulating microparticles in the study and control subjects

Circulating levels of (A) Platelet-derived activated MPs (PDAc-MPs; p = 0.009), (B) Platelet-derived apoptotic MPs (PDAp-MPs; p = 0.038), (C) Endothelial-derived activated MPs (EDAc-MPs; p = 0.022) and (D) Endothelial-derived apoptotic MPs (EDAp-MPs; p = 0.018) in study and control subjects. Note: CI = confidence intervals.

Baseline characteristics of study patients

The disease control (DC) and disease progression (DP) groups had similar parameters like gender, weight, height, surface area, mass index and incidence of smoking status. The serum levels of total cholesterol, sugar, glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase (GOT) and glutamic pyruvic transaminase (GPT) were also similar between these two groups. Furthermore, the red blood cell (RBC), white blood cell (WBC) and platelet counts as well as circulating levels of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) were also similar between the 2 groups. Furthermore, comorbidities like hypertension, diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease and chronic obstructive lung disease were comparable between DC and DP groups (Table 2).
Table 2

Baseline Characteristics of 136 Study Patients

VariableDisease Progression (n=42)Disease Control (n=94)P-value
Age62.69 ± 10.8065.01 ± 10.230.244
Sex (male)64.3% (27)61.7% (58)0.849
Body weight (kg)65.47 ± 19.7273.04 ± 35.090.112
Body height (cm)162.45 ± 23.02147.34 ± 36.170.004
Body surface area (m2)1.67 ± 0.181.64 ± 0.180.338
Body mass index (kg/m2)23.61 ± 3.2723.31 ± 3.660.642
Smoking status50% (21)54.2% (51)0.711
Total cholesterol (mg/dL)176.33 ± 49.09182.25 ± 45.510.506
Triglyceride (mg/dL)178.75±81.92193.12±86.470.365
Ac sugar (mg/dL)123.17 ± 48.15128.36 ± 66.160.608
Creatinine0.90±0.340.89±0.350.928
Na136.69±8.20137.10±6.910.766
K3.99±0.593.85±0.570.224
Aspartate aminotransferase (IU)26.38 ± 16.3625.62 ± 12.220.766
Alanine aminotransferase (IU)31.14 ± 38.1028.79 ± 27.360.685
White blood cell count (x103/mL)8.23±5.207.92±3.480.690
Red blood cell count (x106/mL)4.41±0.584.44±0.730.814
Platelet count (x103/mL)27.7±12.726.4±10.50.539
CEA357.16±1760.4475.88±166.130.302
Underlying comorbidity
 Hypertension47.6% (20)39.4% (37)0.452
 Diabete mellitus19% (8)18.1% (17)1.000
 COPD9.5% (4)12.1% (11)1.000
 CAD14.3% (6)22.3% (21)0.355

Data are expressed as mean ± SD or % (n).

Data are expressed as mean ± SD or % (n).

Lung cancer associated parameters in the study patients

The cell types of lung cancer (adenocarcinoma or non-adenocarcinoma) were similar between the DC and the DP groups. However, higher epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation levels were observed in the DC patients compared to DP group. The incidence of metastasis and the metastatic sites were similar for the two groups of the patients. Also, the two groups showed no differences in stages IIIB or IV. However, the DP patients’ performance status was poorer than the DC group, and the DC group of patients was easily met with target therapy (Table 3).
Table 3

Lung Cancer Associated Parameters in 136 Study Patients

VariablesDisease Progression (n=42)Disease Control (n=94)P-value
Cell type0.049
 Adenocarcinoma73.8% (31)87.2% (82)
 Non-adenocarcinoma26.2% (11)12.8% (12)
Metastasis0.355
 M023.8% (10)21.3% (20)
 M1a23.8% (10)36.2% (34)
 M1b52.4% (22)42.5% (40)
Stage0.824
 IIIb23.8% (10)21.3% (20)
 IV76.2% (32)78.7% (74)
Metastatic site
 Pleura31% (13)41.5% (39)0.259
 Lung40.5% (17)26.6% (25)0.440
 Bone28.6% (12)34% (32)0.559
 Liver7.1% (3)8.5% (8)1.000
 Adrenal gland7.1% (3)1.1% (1)0.087
 Brain16.7% (7)12.8% (12)0.596
Performance status0.008
 014.3% (6)9.6% (9)
 157.1% (24)80.9% (76)
 228.6% (12)9.6% (9)
Therapeutic Intervention0.000
 Target therapy11.9% (5)70.2% (66)
 Chemotherapy88.1% (37)29.8% (28)
EGFR status11.9% (5)70.2% (66)0.000

Data are expressed as % (n).

Data are expressed as % (n).

Circulating microparticle levels in DC and DP patients

Table 4 shows the changes in circulating levels of PDAc-MPs, PDAp-MPs, EDAc-MPs, EDAp-MPs between the DC and DP patients prior to and at the end of 1st and 3rd months after pharmacological intervention. The circulating levels of the four types of MPs were similar between the DC and DP groups prior to and at the end of the first month after pharmacological therapy (Figure 2). However, at the end of the third month after pharmacological therapy, all the four types of MPs were significantly lower in the DC group than in the DP group (Figure 2). This was corroborated by positive ΔEDAp-MP, ΔEDAc-MP, ΔPDAp-MP and ΔPDAc-MP values associated with DP. These findings demonstrated that the pharmacological therapy lowered the circulating MPs in the DC group (Table 4 and Figure 2).
Table 4

Serial changes of circulating microparticles between disease progression and disease control patients

VariablesDisease Progression (n=42)Disease Control (n=94)P-value
PDAc-MPs (time 1)*0.554
mean±SD129713.69 ± 181619.98209509.10 ± 862192.46
median19720.511749.5
interquartile range6978.75~29012.257050.25~18300
range3307~408654399~1172133
PDAp-MPs (time 1)*0.963
mean±SD30424.81 ± 36668.1831239.79 ± 112335.20
median1290.01432
interquartile range672.25~3950603.5~3220
range160~9279270~365091
EDAc-MPs (time 1)*0.779
mean±SD5998.31 ± 15338.897731.37 ± 38596.88
median20198.515393
interquartile range8434.25~380648244.25~25611
range1042~8637.51165~1097489
EDAp-MPs (time 1)*0.816
mean±SD29695.21 ± 62524.7926043.40 ± 119847.80
median54283.526465
interquartile range9166.75~193062.7512291.75~69015.5
range1042~86371566~8264000
PDAc-MPs (time 2)†0.267
mean±SD61578.98 ± 83592.2594027.07 ± 106312.33
median1062111047
interquartile range7148.5~145406145.75~18297.5
range1818~26138134~46044
PDAp-MPs (time 2)†0.325
mean±SD15173.62 ± 11688.9918028.77 ± 17020.22
median763.52240.5
interquartile range423.25~1791.75765~4536.75
range104~28217110~21870
EDAc-MPs (time 2)†0.267
mean±SD2315.71 ± 4803.613237.34 ± 3474.93
median1102612807.5
interquartile range7757.25~203216660.25~24240.25
range1239~53748122~10827
EDAp-MPs (time 2)†0.200
mean±SD10912.26 ± 5543.1112782.32 ± 8648.35
median3547261596.5
interquartile range8231.25~76459.7524945.5~124349.5
range568~42533948~662081
PDAc-MPs (time 3)‡0.009
mean±SD163110.26 ± 250042.1055555.49 ± 76172.00
median169078565.5
interquartile range10666.25~25465.254527.75~13739.75
range1050~66499723~45969
PDAp-MPs (time 3)‡0.013
mean±SD31602.12 ± 43567.7413907.85 ± 13973.76
median51211158
interquartile range2212.5~13313518~2915.25
range471~12726599~8049
EDAc-MPs (time 3)‡0.007
mean±SD10551.19 ± 19882.081900.62 ± 1889.91
median172119094
interquartile range8945.75~321665765.75~16032.75
range1211~206185966~81818
EDAp-MPs (time 3)‡<0.000
mean±SD19717.12 ± 13296.769966.81 ± 7436.74
median110855.527656.5
interquartile range492545~221313.759829.5~70369.5
range4831~149932621~465579
ΔEDAp-MPs0.003
 Increase64.3%(27)36.2%(34)
 Decrease35.7%(15)63.8%(60)
ΔEDAc-MPs<0.0001
 Increase85.7%(36)44.7%(42)
 Decrease14.3%(6)55.6%(52)
ΔPDAp-MPs0.036
 Increase50%(21)30.9%(29)
 Decrease50%(21)69.1%(65)
ΔPDAc-MPs0.005
 Increase64.3%(27)37.2%(35)
 Decrease35.7%(15)62.8%(59)

Data expressed as mean ± SD.

PDAc-MPs = platelet-derived activated microparticles; PDAp-MPs = platelet-derived apoptotic MPs; EDAc-MPs = endothelial-derived activated MPs; EDAp-MPs = endothelial-derived apoptotic MPs.

* indicated the blood sampling was performed prior to any treatment. † indicated the blood sampling was performed at the end of 1st month after pharmacological intervention. ‡ indicated the blood sample was performed at the end of the 3rd month after pharmacological intervention.

ΔEDAp-MPs: EDApMPs levels that three months after treatment minus initial level

ΔEDAc-MPs: EDAcMPs levels that three months after treatment minus initial level

ΔPDAp-MPs: PDApMPs levels that three months after treatment minus initial level

ΔPDAc-MPs: PDAcMPs levels that three months after treatment minus initial level

Figure 2

Comparison of changes in levels of the four types of microparticles in disease control (DC) and disease progression (DP) groups

Changes in levels of (A) PDAc-MPs (p=0.027), (B) PDAp-MPs (p=0.015), (C) EDAc-MPs (p=0.007) and (D) EDAp-MPs (p=0.025) between DC and DP group of patients.

Data expressed as mean ± SD. PDAc-MPs = platelet-derived activated microparticles; PDAp-MPs = platelet-derived apoptotic MPs; EDAc-MPs = endothelial-derived activated MPs; EDAp-MPs = endothelial-derived apoptotic MPs. * indicated the blood sampling was performed prior to any treatment. † indicated the blood sampling was performed at the end of 1st month after pharmacological intervention. ‡ indicated the blood sample was performed at the end of the 3rd month after pharmacological intervention. ΔEDAp-MPs: EDApMPs levels that three months after treatment minus initial level ΔEDAc-MPs: EDAcMPs levels that three months after treatment minus initial level ΔPDAp-MPs: PDApMPs levels that three months after treatment minus initial level ΔPDAc-MPs: PDAcMPs levels that three months after treatment minus initial level

Comparison of changes in levels of the four types of microparticles in disease control (DC) and disease progression (DP) groups

Changes in levels of (A) PDAc-MPs (p=0.027), (B) PDAp-MPs (p=0.015), (C) EDAc-MPs (p=0.007) and (D) EDAp-MPs (p=0.025) between DC and DP group of patients.

Comparing effects of chemotherapy and targeted therapy on circulating microparticle levels

Table 5 compares changes in circulating levels of PDAc-MPs, PDAp-MPs, EDAc-MPs, EDAp-MPs in the patients that received chemotherapy or targeted therapy. The lung cancer patients with EGFR mutant type were treated with EGFR TKI agents and those with EGFR wildtype subgroup were treated with chemotherapy based on guideline recommendations. The flow cytometric analysis showed that the circulating levels of the four types of MPs were similar between the chemotherapy and targeted therapy patients prior to and at the end of the first month after pharmacological therapy. However, at the end of the third month after pharmacological therapy, all the four types of MPs were significantly lower in patients that received targeted therapy compared to those that received chemotherapy. (Table 5)
Table 5

Serial changes of circulating microparticles between chemotherapy and target therapy patients

VariablesChemotherapy (n=65)Target therapy (n=71)P-value
PDAc-MPs (time 1)*223983.58 ± 1022792.58149054.89 ± 224562.980.548
PDAp-MPs (time 1)*44645.09 ± 136502.0018485.23 ± 13633.030.129
EDAc-MPs (time 1)*9618.75 ± 46275.149478.30 ± 12246.300.417
EDAp-MPs (time 1)*42145.84 ± 15114.7613461.90 ± 10052.020.132
PDAc-MPs (time 2)†73103.35 ± 109872.1993987.94 ± 91086.410.228
PDAp-MPs (time 2)†16885.72 ± 17225.2517386.25 ± 14031.420.852
EDAc-MPs (time 2)†2613.71 ± 4444.463263.08 ± 3412.560.339
EDAp-MPs (time 2)†11468.14 ± 7389.8212879.21 ± 8241.490.297
PDAc-MPs (time 3)‡119051.69 ± 250550.4361049.11 ± 83443.710.034
PDAp-MPs (time 3)‡24724.68 ± 36663.1514472.15 ± 14869.750.039
EDAc-MPs (time 3)‡7070.12 ± 16525.592285.21 ± 2554.220.024
EDAp-MPs (time 3)‡15424.49 ± 12684.8610738.13 ± 7661.490.011

Data expressed as mean ± SD.

PDAc-MPs = platelet-derived activated microparticles; PDAp-MPs = platelet-derived apoptotic MPs; EDAc-MPs = endothelial-derived activated MPs; EDAp-MPs = endothelial-derived apoptotic MPs.

* indicated the blood sampling was performed prior to any treatment. † indicated the blood sampling was performed at the end of 1st month after pharmacological intervention. ‡ indicated the blood sample was performed at the end of the 3rd month after pharmacological intervention.

Data expressed as mean ± SD. PDAc-MPs = platelet-derived activated microparticles; PDAp-MPs = platelet-derived apoptotic MPs; EDAc-MPs = endothelial-derived activated MPs; EDAp-MPs = endothelial-derived apoptotic MPs. * indicated the blood sampling was performed prior to any treatment. † indicated the blood sampling was performed at the end of 1st month after pharmacological intervention. ‡ indicated the blood sample was performed at the end of the 3rd month after pharmacological intervention.

Circulating levels of microparticles in one-year survivors and non-survivors

We observed that the four types of circulating MPs did not differ between 1-year survivors and non-survivors prior to and at one month time intervals after pharmacological intervention. However, at the end of the third month after pharmacological intervention, except for EDAc-MPs, the other three types of MPs were significantly higher in the one-year non-survivors than in one-year survivors. Additionally, PDAc-MPs and EDAc-MPs levels were significantly higher in 1-year non-survivors than in 1-year survivors. These findings suggest that the circulating MPs can serve as 1-year prognostic predictors in advanced stage NSCLC patients. (Table 6 and Figure 3)
Table 6

Serial changes of circulating microparticles between one year survivors and on year non-survivors

VariablesOne year non-survivors (n=34)One year survivors (n=102)P-value
PDAc-MPs (time 1)*106012.59 ± 119401.35211151.00 ± 832025.210.465
PDAp-MPs (time 1)*22543.09 ± 19448.7333803.11 ± 109590.410.553
EDAc-MPs (time 1)*5019.29 ± 7981.377921.78 ± 38015.190.660
EDAp-MPs (time 1)*29914.29 ± 68885.7026256.79 ± 115164.170.862
PDAc-MPs (time 2)†86471.00 ± 96982.2983184.78 ± 102325.180.334
PDAp-MPs (time 2)†14217.09 ± 9419.3818123.68 ± 17079.450.486
EDAc-MPs (time 2)†3487.41 ± 5622.062774.49 ± 3205.340.098
EDAp-MPs (time 2)†11096.35 ± 5378.5512574.28 ± 8505.540.870
PDAc-MPs (time 3)‡188877.00 ± 267863.3555402.25 ± 78140.980.009
PDAp-MPs (time 3)‡23141.74 ± 38386.7718115.76 ± 23505.100.007
EDAc-MPs (time 3)‡12522.74 ± 21674.661921.91 ± 1842.740.365
EDAp-MPs (time 3)‡17790.21 ± 12573.5711373.84 ± 9379.330.007

Data expressed as mean ± SD.

PDAc-MPs = platelet-derived activated microparticles; PDAp-MPs = platelet-derived apoptotic MPs; EDAc-MPs = endothelial-derived activated MPs; EDAp-MPs = endothelial-derived apoptotic MPs.

* indicated the blood sampling was performed prior to any treatment. † indicated the blood sampling was performed at the end of 1st month after pharmacological intervention. ‡ indicated the blood sample was performed at the end of the 3rd month after pharmacological intervention.

Figure 3

Comparison of changes in levels of the four types of microparticles in one-year survivors and non-survivors

Changes in levels of (A) PDAc-MPs (p=0.019), (B) PDAp-MPs (p=0.558), (C) EDAc-MPs (p=0.038), (D) EDAp-MPs (p=0.241 in one-year survivor and non-survivor groups.

Data expressed as mean ± SD. PDAc-MPs = platelet-derived activated microparticles; PDAp-MPs = platelet-derived apoptotic MPs; EDAc-MPs = endothelial-derived activated MPs; EDAp-MPs = endothelial-derived apoptotic MPs. * indicated the blood sampling was performed prior to any treatment. † indicated the blood sampling was performed at the end of 1st month after pharmacological intervention. ‡ indicated the blood sample was performed at the end of the 3rd month after pharmacological intervention.

Comparison of changes in levels of the four types of microparticles in one-year survivors and non-survivors

Changes in levels of (A) PDAc-MPs (p=0.019), (B) PDAp-MPs (p=0.558), (C) EDAc-MPs (p=0.038), (D) EDAp-MPs (p=0.241 in one-year survivor and non-survivor groups.

Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) plot of circulating levels of MPs and CEA in NSCLC patients with progressive and non-progressive disease

Next, we examined if the circulating levels of the four types of MPs and CEA could predict progressive disease in NSCLC patients. As shown in Figure 4 and Table 7, ROC curve analysis showed that the circulating levels of EDAp-MPs, EDAc-MPs, PDAp-MPs and PDAc-MPs were greater than 10468.5 counts/ml, 3557 counts/ml, 15055 counts/ml and 62700.5 counts/ml, respectively at the 3rd month after therapy. These data showed that the 4 types of MPs had high sensitivity and specificity and were good prognostic predictors for advanced stage NSCLC. Further, multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the EGFR mutant, levels of EDAc-MPs at 3rd month after therapy and the ΔPDAp-MPs and ΔPDAc-MPs were independent prognostic predictors in NSCLC patients (Table 8).
Figure 4

Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) plot showing circulating levels of microparticles (MPs) in progressive and non-progressive NSCLC

Table 7

Value of four types of microparticles for predicting progressive disease of NSCLC patients

VariablesAUCP value95% CI
EDAp-MPs (time 3)0.805<0.0000.680~0.861
EDAc-MPs (time 3)0.659<0.0000.760~0.907
PDAp-MPs (time 3)0.6100.0010.584~0.787
PDAc-MPs (time 3)0.707<0.0000.667~0.847
ΔEDAp-MPs0.5900.0980.471~0.708
ΔEDAc-MPs0.771<0.0000.670~0.872
ΔPDAp-MPs0.5940.0830.474~0.714
ΔPDAc-MPs0.6670.0020.553~0.781
CEA0.4600.4640.354~0.567
VariablesCut-off valueSensitivitySpecificity
EDAp-MPs (time 3)10468.50.8050.638
EDAc-MPs (time 3)35570.6590.840
PDAp-MPs (time 3)150550.6100.713
PDAc-MPs (time 3)62700.50.7070.734
ΔEDAp-MPs+1960.6340.660
ΔEDAc-MPs+2670.8290.596
ΔPDAp-MPs+918.50.5120.734
ΔPDAc-MPs+24480.6340.670
ΔCEA+6.370.4630.468

NSCLC = non small cell lung cancer; AUC = area under the curve; CI = confidence interval; NSCLC = non small cell lung cancer; PDAc-MPs = platelet-derived activated microparticles; PDAp-MPs = platelet-derived apoptotic microparticles; EDAc-MPs = endothelial derived activated microparticles; EDAp-MPs = endothelial-derived apoptotic microparticles.

ΔEDAp-MPs: EDApMPs levels that three months after treatment minus initial level

ΔEDAc-MPs: EDAcMPs levels that three months after treatment minus initial level

ΔPDAp-MPs: PDApMPs levels that three months after treatment minus initial level

ΔPDAc-MPs: PDAcMPs levels that three months after treatment minus initial level

Table 8

Predictors of progressive disease in non-small cell lung cancer patients by multivariate logistic regression analysis

VariableComparisonORb (95%CIc)P-value
Body heightPer 1 unit decrease1.179(0.009~1.387)0.074
Adrenal gland metastasisYes vs. No0.007(0.001~69.783)0.290
CEADisease control vs. Progression0.999(0.998~1.001)0.464
Performance status2 vs. 0&10.251(0.253~1.193)0.082
EGFR mutantYes vs. No150.517(8.986~2521.118)<0.0001
EDAp-MPs (time3)Per 1 unit decrease1.000(1.000~1.000)0.412
EDAc-MPs (time3)Per 1 unit decrease1.001(1.000~1.002)0.022
PDAp-MPs (time3)Per 1 unit decrease1.000(1.000~1.000)0.327
PDAc-MPs (time3)Per 1 unit decrease1.000(1.000~1.000)0.887
ΔEDAp-MPspositive vs. negative0.557(0.052~6.004)0.630
ΔEDAc-MPspositive vs. negative0.285(0.033~2.468)0.254
ΔPDAp-MPspositive vs. negative0.074(0.006~0.892)0.040
ΔPDAc-MPspositive vs. negative12.32(1.130~134.32)0.039

aΔEDAp-MPs: EDApMPs levels that three months after treatment minus initial level

ΔEDAc-MPs: EDAcMPs levels that three months after treatment minus initial level

ΔPDAp-MPs: PDApMPs levels that three months after treatment minus initial level

ΔPDAc-MPs: PDAcMPs levels that three months after treatment minus initial level

bOdds ratio

cConfidence interval

NSCLC = non small cell lung cancer; AUC = area under the curve; CI = confidence interval; NSCLC = non small cell lung cancer; PDAc-MPs = platelet-derived activated microparticles; PDAp-MPs = platelet-derived apoptotic microparticles; EDAc-MPs = endothelial derived activated microparticles; EDAp-MPs = endothelial-derived apoptotic microparticles. ΔEDAp-MPs: EDApMPs levels that three months after treatment minus initial level ΔEDAc-MPs: EDAcMPs levels that three months after treatment minus initial level ΔPDAp-MPs: PDApMPs levels that three months after treatment minus initial level ΔPDAc-MPs: PDAcMPs levels that three months after treatment minus initial level EDAp-MPs: EDApMPs levels that three months after treatment minus initial level ΔEDAc-MPs: EDAcMPs levels that three months after treatment minus initial level ΔPDAp-MPs: PDApMPs levels that three months after treatment minus initial level ΔPDAc-MPs: PDAcMPs levels that three months after treatment minus initial level bOdds ratio cConfidence interval

DISCUSSION

In this study, we determined if circulating levels of MPs could predict clinical outcomes in advanced stage NSCLC patients. We observed that circulating levels of the four types of MPs that we analyzed were higher in advanced stage NSCLC patients. The levels of EDAc-MPs, EDAp-MPs, PDAc-MPs, PDAp-MPs did not differ between DC and DP prior to therapeutic intervention. However, by the end of the third month, all the four biomarkers were significantly lower in the DC group compared with the DP group and similar to control subjects. Additionally, the positive net changes of four types of microparticles (i.e., ΔEDAp-MPs, ΔEDAc-MPs, ΔPDAp-MPs and ΔPDAc-MPs) between 3rd month and baseline were strongly associated with DP. Furthermore, ROC curve identified that the absolute values at three months and the relative changes of MP values over time (i.e., ΔEDAp-MPs, ΔEDAc-MPs, ΔPDAp-MPs and ΔPDAc-MPs) had notably higher sensitivity and specificity than that of the CEA level for predicting the prognostic outcomes. Moreover, multivariate logistic regression analysis exhibited that the EGFR mutant, EDAc-MPs level at 3rd month and the net change between baseline and 3rd month (i.e., ΔPDAp-MPs and ΔPDAc-MPs) were also independently predictive of DP in NSCLC patients. Accordingly, these suggested that these four types of circulating MPs may be useful biomarkers for predicting prognostic outcomes in LC patients. This study also showed that the circulating levels EDAc-MPs, EDAp-MPs, PDAc-MPs were higher in study patients prior to receiving treatment than in control subjects and were consistent with previous studies [18-20]. Most importantly, the circulating levels of the four types of MPs in the DC group were significantly lower and comparable to the control subjects at end of the third month in the DC group than in the DP group. Furthermore, the circulating levels of MPs independently predicted the one-year prognostic clinical outcome in the advanced stage NSCLC patients. Thus, our findings highlight that serial measurement of circulating MPs can predict therapeutic response and prognostic outcomes in advanced NSCLC patients, especially when considering the cost and effectiveness of target therapy. An association between aberrant EGFR mutation activity and better prognostic outcomes has been reported previously [40] [18-20]. Additionally, poor performance status and poorer prognostic outcomes were associated according to previous studies [41] [18-20]. We demonstrated that the poor performance status was significantly higher in the DP group, whereas EGFR mutations were significantly lower in the DP group. This study has limitations. First, the sample size of this cohort study was relatively small. Therefore, a new clinical trial with larger sample size is needed to validate that circulating MP levels can predict long-term clinical outcomes in advanced NSCLC patients. Second, this study measured only advanced NSCLC patients. Therefore, the usefulness of these four biomarkers in small cell lung cancer or other types of cancer patients is not known. In conclusion, we demonstrated that serial measurement of the circulating levels of EDAc-MPs, EDAp-MPs, PDAc-MPs, PDAp-MPs predicted prognostic outcomes in advanced NSCLC patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

NSCLC patient enrollment and therapeutic strategies

Patient enrollment, data collection, classification of advanced stage NSCLC and therapeutic strategies were according to our previous studies [18-20]. We assessed images and pathological findings of all patients who received evaluation or treatment for LC at Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital. We determined the eligibility of patients for interventions including surgery, adjunctive or palliative chemotherapy, irradiation therapy and/or target therapy based on the AJCC cancer staging criteria, 7th edition [39]. Based on the radiological findings, we categorized LC patients into stages I, II, IIIA, IIIB, and IV according to AJCC cancer staging criteria, 7th edition [42]. Patients with stage IIIB or stage IV NSCLC were categorized as advanced stage NSCLC. All the patients were enrolled for further evaluation, blood sampling and treatment in the outpatient department or upon hospital admission. Detailed in-hospital and follow-up data including age, gender, chest x-ray findings, computed tomography, fibro-bronchoscopic findings, bone scans or ultrasound studies, other image findings, histological, pathological and laboratory findings were collected prospectively and entered into a computer database for analyses. Informed consent was obtained from all patients and control subjects enrolled in the study. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Committee on Human Research at Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital (IRB number: 100-1024B). The clinical investigations were conducted according to the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. To circumvent adverse influences on measurement of circulating level of MPs, patients with one or more of the following criteria were excluded based on our previous studies [18-20]: (1) recent surgery or trauma during the preceding 2 months;(2) refusal to participate in the study; (3) other co-existent or history of malignances; (4) severe organ disease other than LC like chronic kidney disease (CKD > stage III), liver cirrhosis, hematologic disorders, congestive heart failure; (5) current use of anti-platelet agents;(6) history of febrile disorders; (7) acute or chronic inflammatory disease other than LC during the study period; or (8) a history of autoimmune diseases with or without immunosuppressive therapy. A total of 1418 NSCLC patients were screened at Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital from March 2012 to January 2015. Among them, 1106 (78%) were advanced NSCLC patients. For the purpose of the study, only patients with advanced NSCLC without prior treatment were considered. Among the 1,418 patients (including NSCLC and other type of lung cancer), 1145 patients did not fit the enrolment criteria and were excluded from the study. Additionally, 35 patients were excluded due to the aforementioned reasons. Finally, 136 patients who were diagnosed with advanced stage NSCLC between March 2012 and January 2015 were prospectively enrolled in this study [stage IIIB, 22.1% (30); stage IV, 77.9% (106)] (Table 3). These 136 patients were further divided into disease controlled (DC) group (n=94) and disease progression (DP) group (n=42).

Flow cytometry analysis of circulating microparticles

As shown in Figure 5, the circulating MPs were categorized as (1) platelet-derived activated MPs (PDAc-MPs; CD31+ CD42b+ AN-V-); (2) platelet-derived apoptotic MPs (PDAp-MPs; CD31+ CD42b+ AN-V+); (3) endothelial-derived activated MPs (EDAc-MPs; CD31+ CD42b- AN-V-); and (4) endothelial-derived apoptotic MPs (EDAp-MPs; CD31+ CD42b- AN-V+) based on a previous study [43] with some modifications [18-20].
Figure 5

Flow cytometric analysis

Representative FACS plots showing the four different types of microparticles.

Flow cytometric analysis

Representative FACS plots showing the four different types of microparticles.

Blood sample collection and processing

To determine circulating levels of MPs in advanced stage NSCLC patients, blood samples were collected at 9:00 am prior to and at the end of the first and third month after therapeutic interventions according to previously published protocol [18-20]. Additionally, blood samples were also collected at 9:00 am once from control subjects. For flow cytometry, peripheral blood was collected in acid citrate dextrose (ACD) vacutainer tubes. Platelet-rich plasma was prepared by centrifuging 1.5ml peripheral blood at 2500 g at 4°C for 15 min without acceleration. Then, 250μl plasma samples were thawed and centrifuged at 19,800 g for 10 min at 4°C, and then collected for analyzing MPs smaller than 1.0μm. Size calibration was conducted with 1.0μm beads (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA). The MP pellet was re-suspended with 150μl of AnnexinV binding buffer (BD Biosciences). All buffers were sterile-filtered with a 0.2μm filter. Then, 100μl MPs were incubated in a TruCOUNT tube (BD Biosciences) with the following fluorescent monoclonal antibodies: (1) phycoerythrin (PE)-conjugated anti-CD31 (BD Biosciences); (2) fluorescein isothiocyanate–conjugated anti-AnnexinV (BD Biosciences) and; (3) phycoerythrin-Cy5 (PE-Cy5)-conjugated anti-CD42b (BD Biosciences). The samples were incubated in the dark for 15 min at room temperature followed by addition of 400μl AnnexinV binding buffer and then analyzed in a FC500 flow cytometer (Beckman Coulter). The absolute count of MPs was measured by setting up the FACS machine with TruCount beads at 10,000 events. Additionally, white blood cell (WBC) counts, biochemistry and electrolyte levels were analyzed by standard laboratory methods in our hospital.

Disease classification

Change in tumor burden was assessed to determine tumor response to adjunctive therapy [18-20]. The chest computed tomography (CT) scans were routinely performed at baseline and at 12 week intervals after adjunctive therapy to determine the status of the disease. The tumor measurement was based on the current guidelines of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) including complete response, partial response, stable disease and progressive disease [39]. Accordingly, we categorized the disease status as disease-controlled (DC) or disease-progressed (DP). The DC status was determined at the 3rd month after the treatment and defined as disease with regression with complete response, partial response or stable disease. On the other hand, the DP was defined as disease unresponsive to therapy with a growing tumor or metastasis after complete course of treatment. To elucidate if the changes in MPs over time-course of treatment predicted outcomes, the relative levels (initial vs. third month) of the four types of microparticles were analyzed. The differences in the four types of microparticles were designated as ΔEDAp-MPs, ΔEDAc-MPs, ΔPDAp-MPs and ΔPDAc-MPs, respectively.

Statistical analysis

Data were expressed as means ± standard deviation (SD). Continuous variables were analyzed by independent t tests and categorical variables were analyzed by the chi-square test. To determine outcomes, we compared levels of MPs three months after treatment with the initial levels. All variables were considered as risk factors with a P < 0.10 in univariate analysis and were further analyzed by the multivariate logistic regression analysis to identify the independent factors that predict progressive disease. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted and the area under the curve and CEA levels were compared for the four types of MPs. The cutoff value of MPs for predicting progressive disease in NSCLC patients was according to ROC curves. Results were presented as absolute numbers (percentage) or mean ± SD as well as medians, interquartile ranges and ranges for the various MP results. A two-tailed P value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS statistical software for Windows version 13 (SPSS for Windows, version 13; SPSS Inc., IL).
  43 in total

1.  Enzyme immunoassay detection of platelet-derived microparticles and RANTES in acute coronary syndrome.

Authors:  Shosaku Nomura; Shigeru Uehata; Sonoko Saito; Kazuoki Osumi; Yasushi Ozeki; Yukio Kimura
Journal:  Thromb Haemost       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 5.249

2.  New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada.

Authors:  P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2000-02-02       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 3.  Maintenance therapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: current status and future implications.

Authors:  Thomas E Stinchcombe; Mark A Socinski
Journal:  J Thorac Oncol       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 15.609

Review 4.  Lung cancer.

Authors:  Roy S Herbst; John V Heymach; Scott M Lippman
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2008-09-25       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 5.  Pathophysiologic implications of membrane phospholipid asymmetry in blood cells.

Authors:  R F Zwaal; A J Schroit
Journal:  Blood       Date:  1997-02-15       Impact factor: 22.113

6.  Management of stage IIIA non-small cell lung cancer by thoracic surgeons in North America.

Authors:  Nirmal K Veeramachaneni; Richard H Feins; Briana J K Stephenson; Lloyd J Edwards; Felix G Fernandez
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2012-06-27       Impact factor: 4.330

7.  Time courses and value of circulating microparticles in patients with operable stage non-small cell lung cancer undergoing surgical intervention.

Authors:  Chia-Cheng Tseng; Chin-Chou Wang; Chang-Chun Hsiao; Hung-I Lu; Steve Leu; Huang-Chih Chang; Kuo-Tung Huang; Wen-Feng Fang; Yu-Mu Chen; Shih-Feng Liu; Cheng-Ta Yang; Meng-Chih Lin; Hon-Kan Yip
Journal:  Tumour Biol       Date:  2016-04-08

8.  Gefitinib or chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer with mutated EGFR.

Authors:  Makoto Maemondo; Akira Inoue; Kunihiko Kobayashi; Shunichi Sugawara; Satoshi Oizumi; Hiroshi Isobe; Akihiko Gemma; Masao Harada; Hirohisa Yoshizawa; Ichiro Kinoshita; Yuka Fujita; Shoji Okinaga; Haruto Hirano; Kozo Yoshimori; Toshiyuki Harada; Takashi Ogura; Masahiro Ando; Hitoshi Miyazawa; Tomoaki Tanaka; Yasuo Saijo; Koichi Hagiwara; Satoshi Morita; Toshihiro Nukiwa
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-06-24       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Increased levels of platelet-derived microparticles in patients with diabetic retinopathy.

Authors:  Nahoko Ogata; Masahito Imaizumi; Shosaku Nomura; Akira Shozu; Miwa Arichi; Masato Matsuoka; Miyo Matsumura
Journal:  Diabetes Res Clin Pract       Date:  2004-12-10       Impact factor: 5.602

Review 10.  Function and role of microparticles in various clinical settings.

Authors:  Shosaku Nomura; Yukio Ozaki; Yasuo Ikeda
Journal:  Thromb Res       Date:  2008-07-29       Impact factor: 3.944

View more
  8 in total

1.  Extracellular Vesicles in Chemoresistance.

Authors:  Gabriele De Rubis; Mary Bebawy
Journal:  Subcell Biochem       Date:  2021

Review 2.  Breast Cancer Derived Extracellular Vesicles in Bone Metastasis Induction and Their Clinical Implications as Biomarkers.

Authors:  Simona Taverna; Ilaria Giusti; Sandra D'Ascenzo; Laura Pizzorno; Vincenza Dolo
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2020-05-18       Impact factor: 5.923

Review 3.  The "Janus Face" of Platelets in Cancer.

Authors:  Maria Valeria Catani; Isabella Savini; Valentina Tullio; Valeria Gasperi
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2020-01-25       Impact factor: 5.923

Review 4.  Platelets Extracellular Vesicles as Regulators of Cancer Progression-An Updated Perspective.

Authors:  Magdalena Żmigrodzka; Olga Witkowska-Piłaszewicz; Anna Winnicka
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2020-07-22       Impact factor: 5.923

5.  Blood Circulating CD133+ Extracellular Vesicles Predict Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  Davide Brocco; Pasquale Simeone; Davide Buca; Pietro Di Marino; Michele De Tursi; Antonino Grassadonia; Laura De Lellis; Maria Teresa Martino; Serena Veschi; Manuela Iezzi; Simone De Fabritiis; Marco Marchisio; Sebastiano Miscia; Alessandro Cama; Paola Lanuti; Nicola Tinari
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-07       Impact factor: 6.639

Review 6.  The potential applications of microparticles in the diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of lung cancer.

Authors:  Yu Liu; Sufei Wang; Hui Xia; Xueyun Tan; Siwei Song; Shujing Zhang; Daquan Meng; Qing Chen; Yang Jin
Journal:  J Transl Med       Date:  2022-09-05       Impact factor: 8.440

Review 7.  Tumor circulome in the liquid biopsies for cancer diagnosis and prognosis.

Authors:  Jicheng Wu; Shen Hu; Lihong Zhang; Jinxia Xin; Chongran Sun; Liquan Wang; Kefeng Ding; Ben Wang
Journal:  Theranostics       Date:  2020-03-15       Impact factor: 11.556

8.  A liquid biopsy to detect multidrug resistance and disease burden in multiple myeloma.

Authors:  Sabna Rajeev Krishnan; Gabriele De Rubis; Hayley Suen; Douglas Joshua; Yiu Lam Kwan; Mary Bebawy
Journal:  Blood Cancer J       Date:  2020-03-13       Impact factor: 11.037

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.