Display options
Cite
Mehan MR, Williams SA, Siegfried JM, et al. Validation of a blood protein signature for non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Proteomics. 2014;11(1):32doi: 10.1186/1559-0275-11-32.
Mehan, M. R., Williams, S. A., Siegfried, J. M., Bigbee, W. L., Weissfeld, J. L., Wilson, D. O., Pass, H. I., Rom, W. N., Muley, T., Meister, M., Franklin, W., Miller, Y. E., Brody, E. N., & Ostroff, R. M. (2014). Validation of a blood protein signature for non-small cell lung cancer. Clinical proteomics, 11(1), 32. https://doi.org/10.1186/1559-0275-11-32
Mehan, Michael R, et al. "Validation of a blood protein signature for non-small cell lung cancer." Clinical proteomics vol. 11,1 (2014): 32. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1559-0275-11-32
Mehan MR, Williams SA, Siegfried JM, Bigbee WL, Weissfeld JL, Wilson DO, Pass HI, Rom WN, Muley T, Meister M, Franklin W, Miller YE, Brody EN, Ostroff RM. Validation of a blood protein signature for non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Proteomics. 2014 Aug 01;11(1):32. doi: 10.1186/1559-0275-11-32. eCollection 2014. PMID: 25114662; PMCID: PMC4123246.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Clin Proteomics. 2014 Aug 01;11(1):32. doi: 10.1186/1559-0275-11-32. eCollection 2014.

Validation of a blood protein signature for non-small cell lung cancer.

Clinical proteomics

Michael R Mehan, Stephen A Williams, Jill M Siegfried, William L Bigbee, Joel L Weissfeld, David O Wilson, Harvey I Pass, William N Rom, Thomas Muley, Michael Meister, Wilbur Franklin, York E Miller, Edward N Brody, Rachel M Ostroff

Affiliations

  1. SomaLogic, Inc., Boulder, CO, USA.
  2. University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA ; University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
  3. University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
  4. Department of Epidemiology, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, USA.
  5. Langone Medical Center and Cancer Center, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
  6. New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
  7. Thoraxklinik at University Hospital Heidelberg and Translational Lung Research Center Heidelberg (TLRC-H), Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Heidelberg, Germany.
  8. University of Colorado Cancer Center, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.
  9. University of Colorado Cancer Center, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA ; Denver Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Denver, CO, USA.

PMID: 25114662 PMCID: PMC4123246 DOI: 10.1186/1559-0275-11-32

Abstract

BACKGROUND: CT screening for lung cancer is effective in reducing mortality, but there are areas of concern, including a positive predictive value of 4% and development of interval cancers. A blood test that could manage these limitations would be useful, but development of such tests has been impaired by variations in blood collection that may lead to poor reproducibility across populations.

RESULTS: Blood-based proteomic profiles were generated with SOMAscan technology, which measured 1033 proteins. First, preanalytic variability was evaluated with Sample Mapping Vectors (SMV), which are panels of proteins that detect confounders in protein levels related to sample collection. A subset of well collected serum samples not influenced by preanalytic variability was selected for discovery of lung cancer biomarkers. The impact of sample collection variation on these candidate markers was tested in the subset of samples with higher SMV scores so that the most robust markers could be used to create disease classifiers. The discovery sample set (n = 363) was from a multi-center study of 94 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cases and 269 long-term smokers and benign pulmonary nodule controls. The analysis resulted in a 7-marker panel with an AUC of 0.85 for all cases (68% adenocarcinoma, 32% squamous) and an AUC of 0.93 for squamous cell carcinoma in particular. This panel was validated by making blinded predictions in two independent cohorts (n = 138 in the first validation and n = 135 in the second). The model was recalibrated for a panel format prior to unblinding the second cohort. The AUCs overall were 0.81 and 0.77, and for squamous cell tumors alone were 0.89 and 0.87. The estimated negative predictive value for a 15% disease prevalence was 93% overall and 99% for squamous lung tumors. The proteins in the classifier function in destruction of the extracellular matrix, metabolic homeostasis and inflammation.

CONCLUSIONS: Selecting biomarkers resistant to sample processing variation led to robust lung cancer biomarkers that performed consistently in independent validations. They form a sensitive signature for detection of lung cancer, especially squamous cell histology. This non-invasive test could be used to improve the positive predictive value of CT screening, with the potential to avoid invasive evaluation of nonmalignant pulmonary nodules.

Keywords: Biomarker; Diagnosis; Lung cancer; Preanalytic variability; Proteomic; SOMAmer; Sample bias; Squamous cell carcinoma

References

  1. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011 Mar-Apr;61(2):69-90 - PubMed
  2. Mol Cancer Res. 2010 Nov;8(11):1453-65 - PubMed
  3. PLoS One. 2012;7(7):e39403 - PubMed
  4. Cancer Res. 2009 Sep 15;69(18):7252-61 - PubMed
  5. Science. 1956 Feb 24;123(3191):309-14 - PubMed
  6. J Am Chem Soc. 2010 Mar 31;132(12):4141-51 - PubMed
  7. N Engl J Med. 2011 Aug 4;365(5):395-409 - PubMed
  8. Eur Respir J. 2013 Dec;42(6):1659-67 - PubMed
  9. N Engl J Med. 2013 May 23;368(21):1980-91 - PubMed
  10. JAMA. 2012 Jun 13;307(22):2418-29 - PubMed
  11. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013 Dec 18;105(24):1871-80 - PubMed
  12. Sci Transl Med. 2013 Oct 16;5(207):207ra142 - PubMed
  13. Cancer. 2013 Nov 15;119(22):3976-83 - PubMed
  14. Nat Protoc. 2009;4(1):44-57 - PubMed
  15. Lancet. 2012 Dec 15;380(9859):2095-128 - PubMed
  16. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012 May;21(5):786-92 - PubMed
  17. J Thorac Oncol. 2013 Jul;8(7):866-75 - PubMed
  18. Chem Cent J. 2013 Feb 25;7(1):38 - PubMed
  19. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013 Aug 15;188(4):461-5 - PubMed
  20. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011 Jul 20;103(14):1112-22 - PubMed
  21. J Clin Oncol. 2013 Dec 20;31(36):4536-43 - PubMed
  22. J Proteomics. 2010 Jan 3;73(3):649-66 - PubMed
  23. Chest. 2013 Apr;143(4):1117-1126 - PubMed
  24. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2008 Nov 1;178(9):956-61 - PubMed
  25. J Clin Oncol. 2007 Dec 10;25(35):5578-83 - PubMed
  26. Lancet. 2013 Aug 24;382(9893):709-19 - PubMed
  27. BMC Cancer. 2005 Aug 23;5:110 - PubMed
  28. PLoS One. 2010 Dec 07;5(12):e15004 - PubMed
  29. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2008 Feb;7(2):168-81 - PubMed
  30. J Thorac Oncol. 2012 May;7(5):924-33 - PubMed
  31. J Proteome Res. 2009 Jan;8(1):113-7 - PubMed
  32. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2013;735:283-300 - PubMed
  33. PLoS One. 2011;6(10):e26332 - PubMed
  34. N Engl J Med. 2013 Sep 5;369(10):920-31 - PubMed
  35. N Engl J Med. 2009 Dec 3;361(23):2221-9 - PubMed
  36. J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jun 1;28(16):2719-26 - PubMed
  37. Lung Cancer. 2007 Dec;58(3):384-91 - PubMed
  38. J Thorac Oncol. 2008 Jul;3(7):781-92 - PubMed
  39. Clin Proteomics. 2013 Oct 02;10(1):13 - PubMed
  40. Lancet Oncol. 2014 Jan;15(1):23-34 - PubMed
  41. JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Feb 1;174(2):269-74 - PubMed
  42. PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e46091 - PubMed
  43. PLoS One. 2010 Dec 07;5(12):e15003 - PubMed
  44. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001 Jul 18;93(14):1054-61 - PubMed
  45. J Thorac Oncol. 2013 Sep;8(9):1128-35 - PubMed
  46. Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2008 Dec 1;5(8):811-5 - PubMed
  47. Nature. 2012 Sep 27;489(7417):519-25 - PubMed
  48. J Mol Biol. 2012 Oct 5;422(5):595-606 - PubMed
  49. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013 Apr 15;187(8):848-54 - PubMed
  50. J Thorac Oncol. 2013 Jan;8(1):31-6 - PubMed
  51. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Nov 1;27(31):5287-97 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support