4.3 Article

Global lipidomics identified plasma lipids as novel biomarkers for early detection of lung cancer

期刊

ONCOTARGET
卷 8, 期 64, 页码 107899-107906

出版社

IMPACT JOURNALS LLC
DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.22391

关键词

lipidomics; lung cancer; early biomarkers; ESI-MS

资金

  1. NIH [1R21 CA164764, 5P30GM114737, P20GM103466, U54 MD007584, 2U54MD007601]
  2. Bears Care Foundation
  3. Hawaii Community Foundation
  4. Medical Science Development Subject in Science and Technology Project of Nanjing [ZKX13017, YKK13104, YKK14094]
  5. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu province [BK20151086]
  6. National Nature Scientific Foundation of China [81673030]
  7. Jiangsu Provincial Special Program of Medicine Science [BE2015611]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Lipids play roles in membrane structure, energy storage, and signal transduction as well as in human cancers. Here we adopt lipidomics to identify plasma lipid markers for early screening and detection of lung cancer. Experimental Design: Using mass spectrometry, we profiled 390 individual lipids using training and validation strategy in a total of 346 plasma samples from 199 early NSCLC patients, including 113 adenocacinoma and 86 squamous cell cancers (SqCC), and from 147 healthy controls. Results: In the training stage, we found distinct lipid groups that were significantly distributed between NSCLC cases and healthy controls. We further defined a panel of four lipid markers (LPE(18:1), ePE(40:4), C(18:2) CE and SM(22:0)) for prediction of early cancer with a accuracy of 82.3% AUC (Area under ROC curve), sensitivity of 81.9% and specificity of 70.7% at the training stage and yielded the predictive power with accuracy (AUC, 80.8%), sensitivity 78.7%, specificity 69.4% and in the validation stage. Conclusions: Using lipidomics we identified several lipid markers capable of discerning early stage lung carcinoma from healthy individuals, which might be further developed as a quick, safe blood test for early diagnosis of this disease.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据