| Literature DB >> 33841566 |
Ryo Saito1, Kentaro Yoshimura2, Katsutoshi Shoda1, Shinji Furuya1, Hidenori Akaike1, Yoshihiko Kawaguchi1, Tasuku Murata3, Koretsugu Ogata3, Tomohiko Iwano2, Sen Takeda2, Daisuke Ichikawa1.
Abstract
Biomarkers may be of value for the early detection of gastric cancer (GC) and the preoperative identification of tumor characteristics to guide treatment strategies. The present study analyzed the expression levels of phospholipids in plasma from patients with GC using liquid chromatography/electrospray ionization-mass spectrometry (LC/ESI-MS) to detect reliable biomarkers for GC. Furthermore, combining the results with a machine learning strategy, the present study attempted to establish a diagnostic system for GC. A total of 20 plasma samples from preoperative patients with GC and 16 plasma samples from tumor-free patients (controls) were selected from our biobank named 'SHINGEN (Yamanashi Biobank of Gastroenterological Cancers)', which includes a total of 1,592 plasma samples, and were analyzed by LC/ESI-MS. The obtained data were discriminated using a machine learning-based diagnostic algorithm, whose discriminant ability was confirmed through leave-one-out cross-validation. Using LC/ESI-MS, the levels of 236 lipid molecules were determined. Biomarker analysis revealed that a few lipids that were downregulated in the GC group could discriminate between the GC and control groups. Whole lipid composition analysis using partial least squares regression revealed good discrimination ability between the GC and control groups. Integrative analysis of all molecules using the aforementioned machine learning method exhibited a diagnostic accuracy of 94.4% (specificity, 93.8%; sensitivity, 95.0%). In conclusion, the outcomes of the present study suggested the potential future application of the aforementioned system in clinical settings. By accumulating more reliable data, the present system will be able to detect early-stage cancer and will be capable of predicting the efficacy of each therapeutic strategy. Copyright: © Saito et al.Entities:
Keywords: gastric cancer; lipidomics; machine learning; mass spectrometry; plasma
Year: 2021 PMID: 33841566 PMCID: PMC8020384 DOI: 10.3892/ol.2021.12666
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncol Lett ISSN: 1792-1074 Impact factor: 2.967
Characteristics of controls and patients with GC.
| Variables | Control (n=16) | GC (n=20) | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Comparison between control and GC | |||
| Age (mean ± SD) | 71.2±10.3 | 67.1±12.1 | 0.285 |
| Sex, n (male/female) | 9/7 | 11/9 | 0.999 |
| Cancer specific variables | |||
| Tumor size, mm (mean ± SD) | 66.4±49.9 | ||
| CEA, n (<5/≥5 ng/ml) | 17/3 | ||
| CA19-9, n (<37/≥37 U/ml) | 14/6 | ||
| T-factor, n (T1/2/3/4) | 2/3/8/7 | ||
| N-factor (N0/1/2/3) | 2/5/6/7 | ||
| M-factor, n (M0/1) | 19/1 | ||
| Stage, n (I/II/III/IV) | 0/10/9/1 | ||
| Lymphatic invasion, n (negative/positive) | 1/19 | ||
| Venous invasion, n (negative/positive) | 2/18 | ||
| Pathological subtypes, n (differentiated/undifferentiated) | 10/10 |
GC, gastric cancer; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; CA19-9, carbohydrate antigen 19-9.
Candidate markers of phospholipids for GC.
| Candidate molecule | Relative expression levels (GC/control) | P-value (−log10) |
|---|---|---|
| Dominant in control | ||
| LPC(22:6) | 0.424 | 6.410 |
| PC(42:9) | 0.399 | 4.720 |
| SM(40:1) | 0.579 | 4.680 |
| LPC(20:5) | 0.502 | 3.970 |
| PC(36:1) | 0.732 | 3.850 |
| PC(40:7) | 0.680 | 3.600 |
| PC(40:1) | 0.329 | 3.590 |
| LPC(20:0) | 0.646 | 3.460 |
| LPC(18:2) | 0.644 | 3.290 |
| LPC(22:0) | 0.572 | 3.290 |
| Dominant in GC | ||
| PE(36:2-18:1/18:1) | 1.590 | 1.800 |
| PE(36:1-18:0/18:1) | 1.508 | 0.970 |
| PC(38:3-18:2/20:1) | 1.253 | 0.790 |
| PC(34:3-16:1/18:2) | 1.235 | 0.720 |
| PE(34:2-16:0/18:2) | 1.270 | 0.560 |
| PE(34:1) | 1.180 | 0.550 |
| PE(34:2) | 1.207 | 0.490 |
| PE(34:3) | 1.397 | 0.480 |
| PE(36:3) | 1.272 | 0.420 |
| PC(34:2) | 1.053 | 0.380 |
GC, gastric cancer; LPC, lysophosphatidylcholine; PC, phosphatidylcholine; SM, sphingomyelin; PE, phosphatidylethanolamine.
Figure 1.Receiver operating characteristic curves and comparison of the expression levels for each lipid marker candidate for GC. The top six candidates dominant in control plasma and the top three in the GC group are shown. Each bracket shows the number of carbon and double bonds included. A.U., arbitrary unit; AUC, area under the curve; GC, gastric cancer; LPC, lysophosphatidylcholine; PC, phosphatidylcholine; SM, sphingomyelin; PE, phosphatidylethanolamine.
Figure 2.Evaluation of distinguishability between the GC and control groups by PLS regression. Blue and red plots indicate the control and GC group, respectively. Scatter plots were depicted using PLS scores 1 and 2. PLS, partial least squares; GC, gastric cancer.
Figure 3.Results of discriminant analyses by machine learning for each patient and ROC curve. (A) Cancer probability in each patient. (B) ROC curve of probability by machine learning-based algorithm. The accuracy rate was 94.4%. The AUC was 0.928, and the specificity and sensitivity were 93.8 and 95.0%, respectively. AUC, area under the curve; ROC, receiver operating characteristic.