| Literature DB >> 30045880 |
Zhigang Ren1,2,3, Ang Li2,3,4, Jianwen Jiang1,4,5, Lin Zhou1,4, Zujiang Yu2,3, Haifeng Lu4, Haiyang Xie1,4, Xiaolong Chen2,3, Li Shao4, Ruiqing Zhang6,7, Shaoyan Xu1, Hua Zhang4, Guangying Cui2,3, Xinhua Chen1,4, Ranran Sun2,3, Hao Wen7, Jan P Lerut8, Quancheng Kan9, Lanjuan Li4, Shusen Zheng1,4,10.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To characterise gut microbiome in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and evaluate the potential of microbiome as non-invasive biomarkers for HCC.Entities:
Keywords: early diagnosis; gut microbiota; hepatocellular carcinoma; liver cirrhosis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30045880 PMCID: PMC6580753 DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2017-315084
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Gut ISSN: 0017-5749 Impact factor: 23.059
Figure 1Study design and flow diagram. A total of 486 faecal samples from East China, Central China and Northwest China were prospectively collected. After a strict pathological diagnosis and exclusion process, 150 patients with HCC, 40 patients with cirrhosis and 131 healthy controls were included and randomly divided into the discovery phase and validation phase. In the discovery phase, we characterised gut microbiome among 75 early HCC with cirrhosis, 40 cirrhosis and 75 healthy controls and identified microbial markers and constructed HCC classifier by random forest model between the early HCC cohort and non-HCC cohort (cirrhosis and healthy controls). In validation phase, 56 controls, 30 early HCC and 45 advanced HCC were used to validate diagnosis efficacy of HCC classifier. Moreover, 18 patients with HCC from Xinjiang and 80 HCC from Zhengzhou served as independent diagnostic phase. HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma.
Clinical characteristics of the enrolled participants in discovery phase
| Clinical and pathological indexes | Discovery (n=190) | P values (Control vs eHCC) | P values (LC vs eHCC) | ||
| Control (n=75) | LC (n=40) | early HCC (n=75) | |||
| Age (year) | 48.65±6.61 | 46.95±5.6 | 49.67±8.56 | 0.419 | 0.073 |
| Gender | |||||
| Female | 21 (28%) | 9 (22.5%) | 15 (20%) | 0.339 | 0.811 |
| Male | 54 (72%) | 31 (77.5%) | 60 (80%) | ||
| BMI | 23.0±2.33 | 22.4±1.39 | 22.8±2.04 | 0.561 | 0.222 |
| AFP (ng/m L) | |||||
| ≤20 | 75 (100%) | 30 (75%) | 40 (53.3%) | <0.001 | 0.028 |
| >20 | 0 (0%) | 10 (25%) | 35 (46.7%) | ||
| Tumour size (cm) | |||||
| ≦2 | – | – | 22 | – | – |
| 2<&≦5 | – | – | 53 | – | – |
| Tumour differentiation | |||||
| I-II | – | – | 52 (69.3%) | – | – |
| III-IV | – | – | 23 (30.7%) | – | – |
| Child-Pugh | |||||
| A | – | 40 (100%) | 74 (98.7%) | – | 0.463 |
| B | – | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.3%) | – | |
| ALT (5–40 U/L) | 21.2±10.0 | 31.1±10.9 | 44.9±53.4 | 0.0002 | 0.111 |
| AST (8–40 U/L) | 22.3±5.19 | 31.1±10.2 | 43.4±38.3 | <0.0001 | 0.048 |
| GGT (11–50 U/L) | 22.7±14.2 | 30.3±18.6 | 59.6±49.7 | <0.0001 | 0.0005 |
| Total protein (64.0–83.0 g/L) | 74.4±3.3 | 79.7±36.9 | 67.2±5.8 | <0.0001 | 0.005 |
| Albumin (35.0–55.0 g/L) | 48.5±2.7 | 48.1±2.6 | 38.7±5.1 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 |
| Globulin (20.0–35.0 g/L) | 25.9±2.7 | 31.5±36.9 | 28.5±4.9 | <0.0001 | 0.486 |
| Total bilirubin (μmol/L) | 13.8±5.4 | 16.6±10.1 | 17.9±9.2 | 0.001 | 0.481 |
| Direct bilirubin (μmol/L) | 4.7±1.8 | 5.8±4.8 | 7.4±4.3 | <0.0001 | 0.066 |
| Prothrombin time (12–14 s) | ND | 12.9±0.9 | 12.6±1.4 | – | 0.187 |
| Platelets (83–303 10E9/L) | 217.7±53.4 | 245.9±49.3 | 139.2±69.7 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 |
| Aetiological factors | NO | HBV | HBV | – | – |
| Dietary habit | Mixed diet | Mixed diet | Mixed diet | ||
One-way analysis of variance was used to evaluate the difference among the three groups. Continuous variables were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum test between both groups. Fisher’s exact test compared categorical variables.
AFP, alpha-fetoprotein; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; BMI, body mass index; CTP score, Child- Turcotte-Pugh score; eHCC, early HCC; GGT, glutamyl transpeptidase; HBsAg, hepatitis B surface antigen; HBV, hepatitis B virus; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; LC, liver cirrhosis; ND, no detection.
Figure 2Increased faecal microbial diversity in patients with eHCC (n=75) versus patients with cirrhosis (n=40). (A) Shannon-Wiener curves between number of samples and estimated richness. The estimated OTUs richness basically approached saturation in all samples. Compared with the controls, faecal microbial diversity, as estimated by the Shannon index (B), Simpson index (C) and Invsimpson index (D), was significantly decreased in patients with liver cirrhosis (p=0.0011, 0.0007 and 0.0007, respectively). In contrast, microbial diversity was markedly increased in patients with eHCC versus patients with liver cirrhosis (p=0.0234, 0.0068 and 0.0068, respectively). (E) A Venn diagram displaying the overlaps between groups showed that 524 of the total richness of 932 OTUs were shared among the three groups, while 564 of 843 OTUs were shared between cirrhosis and eHCC. (F) Beta diversity was calculated using weighted UniFrac by PCoA, indicating a symmetrical distribution of faecal microbial community among all the samples. eHCC, early HCC; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; LC, liver cirrhosis; OTUs, Operational Taxonomy Units; PCoA, principal coordinates analysis.
Figure 3Phylogenetic profiles of gut microbes among patients with eHCC with cirrhosis (n=75), patients with liver cirrhosis (n=40) and healthy controls (n=75). Composition of faecal microbiota at the phylum level (A) and genus level (B) among the three groups. The increased microbial community at the phylum level (C) and genus level (D) in eHCC with cirrhosis versus liver cirrhosis. The decreased microbial community at the phylum level (E) and genus level (F) in patients with eHCC with cirrhosis versus healthy controls. (G) The increased microbial community at the genus level in patients with eHCC with cirrhosis versus healthy controls. The box presented the 95% CIs; the line inside denotes the median, and the symbol ‘+’ denotes the mean value. eHCC, early HCC; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; LC, liver cirrhosis.
Figure 4Identification of microbial OTUs-based markers of early HCC by random forest models. To detect unique OTUs markers of early HCC, we conducted a fivefold cross-validation on a random forest model between 75 early HCC and 105 non-HCC samples (40 cirrhosis and 75 controls) in the discovery set. (A) The 30 OTUs markers were selected as the optimal marker set by random forest models. (B) The POD index achieved an AUC value of 80.64% with 95% CI of 74.47% to 86.80% between early HCC and non-HCC cohorts in the discovery phase. (C) The POD value was significantly increased in the early HCC samples versus the non-HCC samples (p=1.5×10–14). AUC, area under the curve; CV Error, the cross-validation error; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; OTUs, Operational Taxonomy Units; POD, probability of disease.
Figure 5Validation and independent diagnosis of microbial markers for HCC. (A) Each POD of each participant from the different cohorts was calculated and the average POD values were compared between the controls and the other HCC cohorts in the validation phase and the independent diagnosis phase. (B) The POD achieved an AUC value of 76.80% (95% CI 67.90% to 85.70%) between early HCC and controls in the validation phase. (C) The POD achieved an AUC value of 80.40% (95% CI 70.70% to 90.20%) between the advanced HCC and controls in the validation phase. (D) The POD achieved an AUC value of 79.20% (95% CI 67.40% to 90.90%) between the 18 HCC from Xinjiang and controls in the independent diagnosis phase. (E) The POD achieved an AUC value of 81.70% (95% CI 74.60% to 88.80%) between the 80 HCC from Zhengzhou and controls in the independent diagnosis phase. AUC, area under the curve; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; POD, probability of disease.