| Literature DB >> 32040515 |
Yuki Goshima1,2, Shinji Nakaoka3,4, Kazuteru Ohashi5, Hisashi Sakamaki5, Kazuko Shibuya1,6, Akira Shibuya1,6,7.
Abstract
DNAM-1 (CD226) is an activating immunoreceptor expressed on T cells and NK cells and involved in the pathogenesis of acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT). We previously reported that a soluble form of DNAM-1 (sDNAM-1) is generated by shedding from activated T cells. Moreover, higher serum levels of sDNAM-1 in patients before allo-HSCT is a predictive biomarker for the development of aGVHD based on the retrospective univariate and multivariate analyses in allo-HSCT patients. However, it remains unclear how the serum levels of sDNAM-1 are regulated after allo-HSCT and whether they are associated with the development of aGVHD. Here, we constructed a mathematical model to assess the dynamics of sDNAM-1 after allo-HSCT by assuming that there are three types of sDNAM-1 (the first and the second were from alloreactive and non-alloreactive donor lymphocytes, respectively, and the third from recipient lymphocytes). Our mathematical model fitted well to the data set of sDNAM-1 in patients (n = 67) who had undergone allo-HSCT and suggest that the high proportion of the first type of sDNAM-1 to the total of the first and second types is associated with high risk of the development of severe aGVHD. Thus, sDNAM-1 after allo-HSCT can be a biomarker for the development of aGVHD.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32040515 PMCID: PMC7010286 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228508
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Patient characteristics and clinical information.
| Variables | GVHD(–) (n = 19) | GVHD(+) (n = 48) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 48.4 (± 13.9) | 44.7 (± 13.8) | 0.42 |
| TBI(+) | 9 | 30 | 0.26 |
| TBI(–) | 10 | 18 | |
| BMT | 16 | 37 | 0.74 |
| Other | 3 | 11 | |
| RD | 2 | 10 | 0.49 |
| URD | 17 | 38 | |
| MA | 12 | 33 | 0.77 |
| RIC | 7 | 15 | |
| 0.78 | |||
| Full match | 12 | 32 | |
| Mismatch | 7 | 16 | |
| 0.58 | |||
| Tacrolimus | 11 | 32 | |
| CsA | 8 | 16 | |
| AML | 10 | 18 | - |
| ALL | 1 | 12 | |
| MDS | 3 | 6 | |
| Others | 5 | 12 | |
| – | |||
| Grade 1 | – | 17 | |
| Grade 2 | – | 22 | |
| Grade 3 | – | 8 | |
| Grade 4 | – | 1 |
There were no significant differences in the listed variables between GVHD (–) and GVHD (+) patients. TBI; Total Body Irradiation, BMT; Bone Marrow Transplantation, RD; Related Donor, URD; Unrelated Donor, MA; Myeloablative, RIC; Reduced Intensity Conditioning, CsA; Cyclosporin A.
Values of R (n = 20, 30, 40, and 50 days).
| GVHD (–) (N = 19) | GVHD (+) (N = 48) | Difference in mean (95% CI) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 36% (± 33%) | 66% (± 38%) | 30% (10%–50%) | 3.5 e–3 | 3.4e–4 | |
| 33% (± 27%) | 74% (± 26%) | 41% (27%–56%) | 1.9e–7 | 1.6e–6 | |
| 34% (± 27%) | 70% (± 25%) | 36% (23%–50%) | 1.1e–6 | 3.4e–6 | |
| 31% (± 25%) | 64% (± 25%) | 33% (19%–46%) | 1.1e–5 | 2.3e–5 |
Estimated values and standard deviations of each R (n = 20, 30, 40, and 50) are shown. Estimated differences mean of R (n = 20, 30, 40, and 50) and these 95% confidence intervals are also shown. Results of statistical tests and P-values are also shown.
Comparison of data fitting between two models using Akaike’s information criterion.
| Model with 2 types of sDNAM-1: no. of patients (%) | Model with 3 types of sDNAM-1: no. of patients (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| GVHD (–) | 7 | 12 | – |
| GVHD (+) | 13 | 35 | – |
| Total | 20 (29.9%) (19%-42%) | 47 (70.1%) (58%-81%) | 0.0013 (<0.05) |
The model that included three types of sDNAM-1 explained the data of each patient more accurately (70.1%) than the model with only two types. The Percentages, 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and the result of statistical test are shown.
Assessment of R by using receiver operating characteristics (ROCs).
| Method | AUC | Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mathematical model | 0.77 (0.66–0.89) | 63% | 84% | 69% | |
| Same as above | 0.86 (0.77–0.94) | 69% | 89% | 75% | |
| Same as above | 0.85 (0.75–0.94) | 79% | 74% | 78% | |
| Same as above | 0.82 (0.71–0.93) | 85% | 68% | 81% | |
| Kanaya et al. [ | Based on maximum value | 0.68 (0.54–0.82) | 69% | 70% | 69% |
| Paczensy et al. [ | Logistic Regression | - | 57% | 75% | 65% |
| Lee et al. [ | super learner methods | *0.613–0.640 | - | - | - |
Comparison of areas under the curve (AUCs) between our R values and those of other studies. The definition of accuracy is TP+TN/(TP+TN+FP+FN). TP = number of true positives; TN = number of true negatives; FP = number of false positives; FN = number of false negatives. “–” means that no value was given in the article cited.