↓ Skip to main content

Individualized metabolic profiling stratifies pancreatic and biliary tract cancer: a useful tool for innovative screening programs and predictive strategies in healthcare

Overview of attention for article published in EPMA Journal, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
Title
Individualized metabolic profiling stratifies pancreatic and biliary tract cancer: a useful tool for innovative screening programs and predictive strategies in healthcare
Published in
EPMA Journal, August 2018
DOI 10.1007/s13167-018-0147-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jun Hwa Lee, Seung Eun Yu, Kyung-Hee Kim, Myung Hyun Yu, In-Hye Jeong, Jae Youl Cho, Sang-Jae Park, Woo Jin Lee, Sung-Sik Han, Tae Hyun Kim, Eun Kyung Hong, Sang Myung Woo, Byong Chul Yoo

Abstract

Pancreatic cancer (PC) and biliary tract cancer (BTC) are highly aggressive cancers, characterized by their rarity, difficulty in diagnosis, and overall poor prognosis. Diagnosis of PC and BTC is complex and is made using a combination of appropriate clinical suspicion, imaging and endoscopic techniques, and cytopathological examination. However, the late-stage detection and poor prognosis of this tumor have led to an urgent need for biomarkers for early and/or predictive diagnosis and improved personalized treatments. There are two hypotheses for focusing on low-mass metabolites in the blood. First, valuable information can be obtained from the masses and relative amounts of such metabolites, which present as low-mass ions (LMIs) in mass spectra. Second, metabolic profiling of individuals may provide important information regarding biological changes in disease states that is useful for the early diagnosis of PC and BTC. To assess whether profiling metabolites in serum can serve as a non-invasive screening tool for PC and BTC, 320 serum samples were obtained from patients with PC (n = 51), BTC (n = 39), colorectal cancer (CRC) (n = 100), and ovarian cancer (OVC) (n = 30), and from healthy control subjects (control) (n = 100). We obtained information on the relative amounts of metabolites, as LMIs, via triple time-of-flight mass spectrometry. All data were analyzed according to the peak area ratios of discriminative LMIs. The levels of the 14 discriminative LMIs were higher in the PC and BTC groups than in the control, CRC and OVC groups, but only two LMIs discriminated between PC and BTC: lysophosphatidylcholine (LysoPC) (16:0) and LysoPC(20:4). The levels of these two LysoPCs were also slightly lower in the PC/BTC/CRC/OVC groups compared with the control group. Taken together, the data showed that metabolic profiling can precisely denote the status of cancer, and, thus, could be useful for screening. This study not only details efficient methods to identify discriminative LMIs for cancer screening but also provides an example of metabolic profiling for distinguishing PC from BTC. Furthermore, the two metabolites [LysoPC(16:0), LysoPC(20:4)] shown to discriminate these diseases are potentially useful when combined with other, previously identified protein or metabolic biomarkers for predictive, preventive and personalized medical approach.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 16%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Other 2 6%
Professor 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 13 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 26%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Computer Science 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 15 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 September 2018.
All research outputs
#21,498,958
of 23,999,200 outputs
Outputs from EPMA Journal
#278
of 318 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#294,607
of 336,520 outputs
Outputs of similar age from EPMA Journal
#6
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,999,200 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 318 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 336,520 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.