Hunter A Miller1, Xinmin Yin2, Susan A Smith3, Xiaoling Hu4, Xiang Zhang2, Jun Yan5, Donald M Miller6, Victor H van Berkel7, Hermann B Frieboes8. 1. Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Louisville, United States. 2. Department of Chemistry, University of Louisville, United States. 3. Department of Surgery, University of Louisville, United States. 4. James Graham Brown Cancer Center, University of Louisville, United States; Division of Immunotherapy, Department of Surgery, University of Louisville, United States. 5. Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Louisville, United States; James Graham Brown Cancer Center, University of Louisville, United States; Division of Immunotherapy, Department of Surgery, University of Louisville, United States; Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Louisville, United States. 6. Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Louisville, United States; James Graham Brown Cancer Center, University of Louisville, United States; Department of Medicine, University of Louisville, United States. 7. James Graham Brown Cancer Center, University of Louisville, United States; Department of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, University of Louisville, United States. 8. Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Louisville, United States; James Graham Brown Cancer Center, University of Louisville, United States; Department of Bioengineering, University of Louisville, United States; Center for Predictive Medicine, University of Louisville, United States. Electronic address: hbfrie01@louisville.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Despite extensive effort, the search for clinically-relevant metabolite biomarkers for early detection, disease monitoring, and outcome prediction in lung cancer remains unfulfilled. Although biofluid evaluation has been explored, the complexity inherent in metabolite data and the dynamic discrepancy between metabolites in biofluids vs. tumor tissue have prevented conclusive results. This proof-of-concept study explored models predictive of staging and chemotherapy response based on metabolomic analysis of fresh, patient-derived non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) core biopsies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Samples (n = 36) were evaluated with high-resolution 2DLC-MS/MS and 13C-glucose enrichment, and the data were comprehensively analyzed with machine learning techniques. Patients were categorized as Disease-Control (DC) [encompassing complete-response (CR), partial-response (PR), and stable-disease (SD)] and Progressive-Disease (PD) in terms of first-line chemotherapy. Four major types of learning methods (partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA), support vector machines (SVM), artificial neural networks, and random forests (RF)) were applied to differentiate between positive (DC and CR/PR) and poor (PD and SD/PD) responses, and between stage I/II/III and stage IV disease. Models were trained with forward feature selection based on variable importance and tested on validation subsets. RESULTS: The models predicted patient classifications in the validation subsets with AUC (95 % CI): DC vs. PD (SVM), 0.970(0.961-0.979); CR/PR vs. SD/PD (PLS-DA), 0.880(0.865-0.895); stage I/II/III vs. IV (SVM), 0.902(0.880-0.924). Highest performing model was SVM for DC vs. PD (balanced accuracy = 0.92; kappa = 0.74). CONCLUSION: This study illustrates a comprehensive evaluation of patient tumor-specific metabolic profiles, with the potential to identify disease stage and predict response to first-line chemotherapy.
OBJECTIVES: Despite extensive effort, the search for clinically-relevant metabolite biomarkers for early detection, disease monitoring, and outcome prediction in lung cancer remains unfulfilled. Although biofluid evaluation has been explored, the complexity inherent in metabolite data and the dynamic discrepancy between metabolites in biofluids vs. tumor tissue have prevented conclusive results. This proof-of-concept study explored models predictive of staging and chemotherapy response based on metabolomic analysis of fresh, patient-derived non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) core biopsies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Samples (n = 36) were evaluated with high-resolution 2DLC-MS/MS and 13C-glucose enrichment, and the data were comprehensively analyzed with machine learning techniques. Patients were categorized as Disease-Control (DC) [encompassing complete-response (CR), partial-response (PR), and stable-disease (SD)] and Progressive-Disease (PD) in terms of first-line chemotherapy. Four major types of learning methods (partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA), support vector machines (SVM), artificial neural networks, and random forests (RF)) were applied to differentiate between positive (DC and CR/PR) and poor (PD and SD/PD) responses, and between stage I/II/III and stage IV disease. Models were trained with forward feature selection based on variable importance and tested on validation subsets. RESULTS: The models predicted patient classifications in the validation subsets with AUC (95 % CI): DC vs. PD (SVM), 0.970(0.961-0.979); CR/PR vs. SD/PD (PLS-DA), 0.880(0.865-0.895); stage I/II/III vs. IV (SVM), 0.902(0.880-0.924). Highest performing model was SVM for DC vs. PD (balanced accuracy = 0.92; kappa = 0.74). CONCLUSION: This study illustrates a comprehensive evaluation of patient tumor-specific metabolic profiles, with the potential to identify disease stage and predict response to first-line chemotherapy.
Authors: Evelien Rysman; Koen Brusselmans; Katryn Scheys; Leen Timmermans; Rita Derua; Sebastian Munck; Paul P Van Veldhoven; David Waltregny; Veerle W Daniëls; Jelle Machiels; Frank Vanderhoydonc; Karine Smans; Etienne Waelkens; Guido Verhoeven; Johannes V Swinnen Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2010-09-28 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Hyun-Woo Cho; Seoung Bum Kim; Myong K Jeong; Youngja Park; Nana Gletsu Miller; Thomas R Ziegler; Dean P Jones Journal: Int J Data Min Bioinform Date: 2008 Impact factor: 0.667
Authors: Joan H Schiller; David Harrington; Chandra P Belani; Corey Langer; Alan Sandler; James Krook; Junming Zhu; David H Johnson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-01-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Gabriele Neurauter; Anna V Grahmann; Martin Klieber; Alain Zeimet; Maximilian Ledochowski; Barbara Sperner-Unterweger; Dietmar Fuchs Journal: Cancer Lett Date: 2008-08-12 Impact factor: 8.679
Authors: Karel G M Moons; Joris A H de Groot; Walter Bouwmeester; Yvonne Vergouwe; Susan Mallett; Douglas G Altman; Johannes B Reitsma; Gary S Collins Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2014-10-14 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Sophia Y Lunt; Leif Väremo; Paul-Joseph P Aspuria; Laurent Vergnes; Maricel Gozo; Jessica A Beach; Brenda Salumbides; Karen Reue; W Ruprecht Wiedemeyer; Jens Nielsen; Beth Y Karlan; Sandra Orsulic Journal: Cancer Metab Date: 2014-12-15
Authors: Kieu Trinh Do; Simone Wahl; Johannes Raffler; Sophie Molnos; Michael Laimighofer; Jerzy Adamski; Karsten Suhre; Konstantin Strauch; Annette Peters; Christian Gieger; Claudia Langenberg; Isobel D Stewart; Fabian J Theis; Harald Grallert; Gabi Kastenmüller; Jan Krumsiek Journal: Metabolomics Date: 2018-09-20 Impact factor: 4.290
Authors: Hunter A Miller; Shesh N Rai; Xinmin Yin; Xiang Zhang; Jason A Chesney; Victor H van Berkel; Hermann B Frieboes Journal: Metabolomics Date: 2022-05-14 Impact factor: 4.290
Authors: C Anil Kumar; S Harish; Prabha Ravi; Murthy Svn; B P Pradeep Kumar; V Mohanavel; Nouf M Alyami; S Shanmuga Priya; Amare Kebede Asfaw Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2022-07-14 Impact factor: 3.246