| Literature DB >> 31308419 |
Rogier Aäron Gaiser1, Alberto Pessia2, Zeeshan Ateeb3, Margaret Sällberg Chen4,5, Marco Del Chiaro6,7, Haleh Davanian1, Carlos Fernández Moro8,9, Hassan Alkharaan1,10, Katie Healy1, Sam Ghazi8, Urban Arnelo3, Roberto Valente3,11, Vidya Velagapudi2.
Abstract
Pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCNs) are a highly prevalent disease of the pancreas. Among PCNs, Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms (IPMNs) are common lesions that may progress from low-grade dysplasia (LGD) through high-grade dysplasia (HGD) to invasive cancer. Accurate discrimination of IPMN-associated neoplastic grade is an unmet clinical need. Targeted (semi)quantitative analysis of 100 metabolites and >1000 lipid species were performed on peri-operative pancreatic cyst fluid and pre-operative plasma from IPMN and serous cystic neoplasm (SCN) patients in a pancreas resection cohort (n = 35). Profiles were correlated against histological diagnosis and clinical parameters after correction for confounding factors. Integrated data modeling was used for group classification and selection of the best explanatory molecules. Over 1000 different compounds were identified in plasma and cyst fluid. IPMN profiles showed significant lipid pathway alterations compared to SCN. Integrated data modeling discriminated between IPMN and SCN with 100% accuracy and distinguished IPMN LGD or IPMN HGD and invasive cancer with up to 90.06% accuracy. Free fatty acids, ceramides, and triacylglycerol classes in plasma correlated with circulating levels of CA19-9, albumin and bilirubin. Integrated metabolomic and lipidomic analysis of plasma or cyst fluid can improve discrimination of IPMN from SCN and within PMNs predict the grade of dysplasia.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31308419 PMCID: PMC6629680 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-46634-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Patient group characteristics.
| Cyst fluid (n = 31) | Plasma (n = 21) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SCN | IPMN | SCN | IPMN | |||||
| LGD | HGD | Cancer | LGD | HGD | Cancer | |||
| Patients, % (n) | 16.1 (5) | 25.8 (8) | 22.6 (7) | 35.5 (11) | 23.8 (5) | 23.8 (5) | 28.6 (6) | 23.8 (5) |
| Female, % | 100 | 50* | 42.9* | 27.3** | 100 | 20* | 33.3* | 40 |
| Alcohol use, % | 60 | 25 | 28.6 | 18.2 | 40 | 20 | 16. 7 | 60 |
| Smokers, % | 40 | 0 | 0 | 9.1 | 40 | 0 | 0 | 40 |
| CVD, % | 20 | 71.4 | 71.4 | 54.6 | 20 | 60 | 50 | 60 |
| Statins use, % | 20 | 12.5 | 14.3 | 9.09 | 20 | 0 | 16.7 | 40 |
| Diabetes, % | 0 | 12.5 | 42.9 | 36.4 | 0 | 20 | 16.7 | 20 |
| Age, years | 48 | 66** | 72*** | 69*** | 53 | 65 | 72.5** | 69** |
| median (range) | (34–58) | (56–81) | (66–75) | (46–83) | (34–68) | (56–76) | (66–75) | (65–83) |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 29.64 | 27.51 | 27.21 | 24.97 | 28.01 | 32.16 | 24 | 25.69 |
| median (range) | (24.1–32.0) | (21.8–36.6) | (23.4–28.3) | (20.2–29.7) | (24.1–31.0) | (24.8–36.6) | (21.5–28.3) | (24.1–32.9) |
| HbA1c, mmol/mol | 31 | 42.5 | 38 | 43* | 33 | 44 | 38 | 51.5 |
| median (range) | (30–37) | (35–48) | (31–55) | (31–67) | (30–43) | (37–48) | (31–55) | (31–81) |
| S-CA 19–9, kE/L | 11 | 18 | 11 | 376* | 11 | 11 | 16 | 285** |
| median (range) | (6.8–62) | (6.4–182) | (<1–115) | (<1–1040) | (7.9–62) | (6.4–182) | (<1–115) | (46–480) |
| Serum amylase, µkat/L | 0.3 | 0.41 | 0.24 | 0.25 | 0.31 | 0.44 | 0.195 | 0.27 |
| median (range) | (0.19–1.64) | (<0.13–0.65) | (<0.13–0.93) | (<0.13–0.87) | (0.19–1.64) | (<0.13–0.54) | (<0.13–0.72) | (<0.13–0.54) |
| Albumin, g/L | 36 | 36 | 36 | 31 | 38 | 37 | 34.5 | 31.5 |
| median (range) | (33–39) | (26–38) | (22–39) | (19–38) | (33–39) | (36–39) | (22–39) | (28–34) |
| Bilirubin, µmol/L | 6 | 6.5 | 5 | 24 | 6 | 8 | 8 | 30 |
| median (range) | (3–18) | (<3–13) | (<3–315) | (5–150) | (3–7) | (4–13) | (4–315) | (12–119) |
| WBC, × 109/L | 6.3 | 7.45 | 7.8 | 9.8 | 6.3 | 7.5 | 8.3 | 11.2** |
| median (range) | (4.4–9.2) | (5–9.4) | (5.6–12.9) | (5–13.9) | (4.4–9.2) | (5.3–9.4) | (7.2–12.9) | (8–13.9) |
Statistical comparisons between each group and the control group (SCN) were made using one-way ANOVA with Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test for quantitative parameters and chi-square test for qualitative values; *p ≤ 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01, ***p ≤ 0.001.
Figure 1Metabolomic profile. Heatmap of cyst fluid (A) and plasma (B) metabolite concentrations. Projection of patient samples on the first two principal components (PCA) for cyst fluid (C) and plasma (D) datasets. Data (cyst, n = 31; plasma, n = 21) were adjusted for confounding factors and features were subsequently standardized to have a mean of zero and unit variance. Dendrograms were built using the Euclidean distance matrix and Ward’s method.
Figure 2Lipidomic profile. Heatmap of cyst fluid (A) and plasma (B) lipid concentrations. Projection of patient samples on the first two principal components (PCA) for cyst fluid (C) and plasma (D) datasets. Data (cyst, n = 31; plasma, n = 21) were adjusted for confounding factors and features were subsequently standardized to have a mean of zero and unit variance. Dendrograms were built using the Euclidean distance matrix and Ward’s method.
Figure 3Estimated fold changes of concentrations of all measured analytes (including metabolite and lipid molecular species) between selected groups. LGD compared to SCN in cyst fluid (A) and plasma (B). HGD/Cancer compared to SCN in cyst fluid (C) and plasma (D). HGD/Cancer compared to LGD in cyst fluid (E) and plasma (F). Filled dots are fold changes whose credibility interval does not overlap with the null reference value of one-fold change, or zero on the plotted log scale.
Performance measures of binary classifications with the chosen CPPLS-DA model.
| AUCa | Sensitivity | Specificity | Balanced accuracyb | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SCN vs All | Cyst fluid | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| Plasma | 0.950 | 0.800 | 0.875 | 0.837 | |
| LGD vs All | Cyst fluid | 0.935 | 0.875 | 0.913 | 0.894 |
| Plasma | 0.825 | 1.000 | 0.812 | 0.906 | |
| HGD-Cancer vs All | Cyst fluid | 0.949 | 0.889 | 0.923 | 0.906 |
| Plasma | 0.854 | 0.636 | 1.000 | 0.818 | |
| IPMN vs SCN | Cyst fluid | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| Plasma | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |
aArea Under the ROC Curve; b(Sensitivity + Specificity)/2.
Figure 4Canonical Powered Partial Least Squares and Discriminant Analysis (CPPLS-DA) results. Projection of patient samples on the first two principal components in cyst fluid (A) and plasma (B). Highest variable importance in projection (VIP) scores in cyst fluid (C) and plasma (D).