| Literature DB >> 29296211 |
Zongtao Yu1,2, Hankui Chen2, Junmei Ai2, Yong Zhu3, Yan Li2, Jeffrey A Borgia4, Jin-Song Yang5, Jicai Zhang1, Bin Jiang3, Wei Gu6, Youping Deng3,1,7.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Lipids play roles in membrane structure, energy storage, and signal transduction as well as in human cancers. Here we adopt lipidomics to identify plasma lipid markers for early screening and detection of lung cancer. EXPERIMENTALEntities:
Keywords: ESI-MS; early biomarkers; lipidomics; lung cancer
Year: 2017 PMID: 29296211 PMCID: PMC5746113 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.22391
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
The list of lipid classes and lipid species detected at the training stage
| Lipid class | Description | No. of lipid species |
|---|---|---|
| PC | Phosphatidylcholine | 54 |
| PE | Phosphatidylethanolamin | 53 |
| PS | Phosphatidylserine | 51 |
| PI | Phosphatidylinositol | 46 |
| ePC | PC with one ether-linked (alkyl or alkenyl) chain | 27 |
| ePE | PE with one ether-linked (alkyl or alkenyl) chain | 27 |
| PA | Phosphatidic acid | 22 |
| ePS | PS with one ether-linked (alkyl or alkenyl) chain | 19 |
| CE | Cholesterol esters | 18 |
| LysoPC | Lyso-Phosphatidylcholine | 14 |
| LysoPE | Lyso-phosphatidylethanolamin | 13 |
| SM | Sphingomyelin | 12 |
| PE-cer | Ceramide phosphoethanolamine | 5 |
A total of 13 lipid classes and 361 lipid species were detected in the training samples.
Top significant lipid species and marker panels for lung cancer prediction
| Lipid type | Training stage | Validation stage | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P-value | FDR P | FC | P-value | FDR P | FC | |
| LPE(18:1) | 5.00E-04 | 1.70E-03 | 1.88 | 1.02E-06 | 2.03E-04 | 2.05 |
| C(18:2)CE | 3.32E-03 | 2.69E-02 | -1.19 | 1.38E-01 | 2.34E-01 | -1.18 |
| ePE(40:4) | 4.35E-03 | 3.51E-02 | 1.27 | 7.14E-02 | 1.27E-01 | 1.24 |
| SM(22:0) | 8.40E-03 | 4.36E-02 | -1.30 | 4.27E-02 | 9.78E-02 | -1.23 |
FDR P, P value after False Discovery Rate adjusted; FC, Fold change; Minor FC stands for decreasing.
Predictive values of lipid panels at the training and the validation stage
| Stage | Sample size | Sens | Spec | PPV(%) | NPV(%) | AUC | OR(95% CI) | Power |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training | 105 vs. 80 | 0.819 | 0.707 | 79.63 | 73.61 | 0.823 | 10.9(5.4 −22.0) | 0.982 |
| Validation | 94 vs. 67 | 0.787 | 0.694 | 77.08 | 71.43 | 0.808 | 8.4(4.2-17.0) | 0.971 |
The predictive values of four lipid species were analyzed between NSCLC vs control. Sens., sensitivity; Spec., specificity; PPV, positive predictive value; NPV, negative predictive value; OR, odds ratio; AUC, area under the curve.
Figure 1Area under the curve (AUC) values of lipid panels for disease prediction in training and the validation cohorts
The AUC values in disease prediction were shown for the lipid panel in distinguishing NSCLC from healthy controls at the training and the validation stages, respectively.
Figure 2Mass-spectra examples of C18:2 CE and SM 22:0 level in SqCC patients and high-risk controls
Spectra of C18:2 CE (A) and SM 22:0 (B) in a representative healthy individual and a representative cancer patient.
Patients’ characteristics of all samples used in both training and validation stage
| Training | Validation | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cancer (105) | Healthy (80) | Cancer (94) | Healthy (67) | |
| Male | 52 | 40 | 56 | 52 |
| Female | 53 | 40 | 38 | 15 |
| Caucacian | 90 | 71 | 79 | 56 |
| Noncaucacian | 15 | 9 | 15 | 11 |
| Median | 67 | 63 | 67 | 59.75 |
| SD | 8.26 | 10.24 | 10.12 | 11.94 |
| Range | 48 – 82 | 20 – 80 | 43 – 88 | 28 – 84 |
| Median | 30 | 50 | 40 | 20 |
| SD | 29.1 | 26.8 | 28.8 | 49.2 |
| Range | 3 – 120 | 5 – 100 | 1 – 120 | 17.5 – 104 |
| Adenocarcinoma | 67 | 58 | ||
| Squamous | 38 | 36 | ||
| Stage I | 65 | 49 | ||
| Stage II | 40 | 45 | ||