4.7 Article

Discrimination between malignant and benign ovarian tumors by plasma metabolomic profiling using ultra performance liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry

Journal

CLINICA CHIMICA ACTA
Volume 413, Issue 9-10, Pages 861-868

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2012.01.026

Keywords

Metabolomics; UPLC/MS; Epithelial ovarian cancer; Benign ovarian tumor; Plasma

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81172767]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Discrimination between epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) and benign ovarian tumor (BOT) has always been difficult in clinical practice. We investigated the application of metabolomics in distinguishing EOC and BOT and tried to discover valuable biomarkers. Methods: Plasma metabolomic profiling was performed using ultra-performance liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (UPLC/MS). Partial least-squares discriminant analysis was employed to classify EOC and BOT, and reveal their metabolic differences. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) was utilized to evaluate the predictive performance of the metabolic profiles for external validation set. Results: The metabolomic profiles consisting of 535 metabolites revealed a clear separation between EOC and BOT, with AUC of 0.86 for the external validation set. 6 metabolic biomarkers were identified, and the plasma concentrations of the 4 ascertained biomarkers (L-tryptophan, LysoPC(18:3), LysoPC(14:0), and 2-Piperidinone) were lower in EOC patients than those in BOT patients. Among them, tryptophan and LysoPC have been suspected to participate in cancer progression, and 2-Piperidinone might be a novel biomarker for EOC. Conclusions: Metabolomics could be used to discriminate EOC from BOT in clinical practice, and the identified metabolic biomarkers might be important on investigating the biological mechanisms of EOC. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available