| Literature DB >> 32462735 |
Paal W Wallace1, Catleen Conrad1, Sascha Brückmann2, Ying Pang3, Eduardo Caleiras4, Masanori Murakami5, Esther Korpershoek6, Zhengping Zhuang7, Elena Rapizzi8, Matthias Kroiss9, Volker Gudziol10,11, Henri Jlm Timmers12, Massimo Mannelli8, Jens Pietzsch13,14, Felix Beuschlein5,15, Karel Pacak3, Mercedes Robledo16, Barbara Klink17,18, Mirko Peitzsch1, Anthony J Gill19,20,21, Arthur S Tischler22, Ronald R de Krijger23,24, Thomas Papathomas25, Daniela Aust26, Graeme Eisenhofer1,27, Susan Richter1.
Abstract
Phaeochromocytomas and paragangliomas (PPGLs) are rare neuroendocrine tumours with a hereditary background in over one-third of patients. Mutations in succinate dehydrogenase (SDH) genes increase the risk for PPGLs and several other tumours. Mutations in subunit B (SDHB) in particular are a risk factor for metastatic disease, further highlighting the importance of identifying SDHx mutations for patient management. Genetic variants of unknown significance, where implications for the patient and family members are unclear, are a problem for interpretation. For such cases, reliable methods for evaluating protein functionality are required. Immunohistochemistry for SDHB (SDHB-IHC) is the method of choice but does not assess functionality at the enzymatic level. Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry-based measurements of metabolite precursors and products of enzymatic reactions provide an alternative method. Here, we compare SDHB-IHC with metabolite profiling in 189 tumours from 187 PPGL patients. Besides evaluating succinate:fumarate ratios (SFRs), machine learning algorithms were developed to establish predictive models for interpreting metabolite data. Metabolite profiling showed higher diagnostic specificity compared to SDHB-IHC (99.2% versus 92.5%, p = 0.021), whereas sensitivity was comparable. Application of machine learning algorithms to metabolite profiles improved predictive ability over that of the SFR, in particular for hard-to-interpret cases of head and neck paragangliomas (AUC 0.9821 versus 0.9613, p = 0.044). Importantly, the combination of metabolite profiling with SDHB-IHC has complementary utility, as SDHB-IHC correctly classified all but one of the false negatives from metabolite profiling strategies, while metabolite profiling correctly classified all but one of the false negatives/positives from SDHB-IHC. From 186 tumours with confirmed status of SDHx variant pathogenicity, the combination of the two methods resulted in 185 correct predictions, highlighting the benefits of both strategies for patient management.Entities:
Keywords: Krebs cycle metabolites; LC-MS/MS; diagnostics; linear discriminant analysis; mass spectrometry; metabolite profiling; multi-observer; prediction models; succinate to fumarate ratio; variants of unknown significance
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32462735 PMCID: PMC7548960 DOI: 10.1002/path.5472
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Pathol ISSN: 0022-3417 Impact factor: 9.883