The multiplex bead array approach to identifying serum biomarkers associated with breast cancer

Introduction Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer seen in women in western countries. Thus, diagnostic modalities sensitive to early-stage breast cancer are needed. Antibody-based array platforms of a data-driven type, which are expected to facilitate more rapid and sensitive detection of novel biomarkers, have emerged as a direct, rapid means for profiling cancer-specific signatures using small samples. In line with this concept, our group constructed an antibody bead array panel for 35 analytes that were selected during the discovery step. This study was aimed at testing the performance of this 35-plex array panel in profiling signatures specific for primary non-metastatic breast cancer and validating its diagnostic utility in this independent population. Methods Thirty-five analytes were selected from more than 50 markers through screening steps using a serum bank consisting of 4,500 samples from various types of cancer. An antibody-bead array of 35 markers was constructed using the Luminex (TM) bead array platform. A study population consisting of 98 breast cancer patients and 96 normal subjects was analysed using this panel. Multivariate classification algorithms were used to find discriminating biomarkers and validated with another independent population of 90 breast cancer and 79 healthy controls. Results Serum concentrations of epidermal growth factor, soluble CD40-ligand and proapolipoprotein A1 were increased in breast cancer patients. High-molecular-weight-kininogen, apolipoprotein A1, soluble vascular cell adhesion molecule-1, plasminogen activator inhibitor-1, vitamin-D binding protein and vitronectin were decreased in the cancer group. Multivariate classification algorithms distinguished breast cancer patients from the normal population with high accuracy (91.8% with random forest, 91.5% with support vector machine, 87.6% with linear discriminant analysis). Combinatorial markers also detected breast cancer at an early stage with greater sensitivity. Conclusions The current study demonstrated the usefulness of the antibody-bead array approach in finding signatures specific for primary non-metastatic breast cancer and illustrated the potential for early, high sensitivity detection of breast cancer. Further validation is required before array-based technology is used routinely for early detection of breast cancer.Kenny HA, 2008, J CLIN INVEST, V118, P1367, DOI 10.1172/JCI33775Shah FD, 2008, INTEGR CANCER THER, V7, P33, DOI 10.1177/1534735407313883Carlsson A, 2008, EUR J CANCER, V44, P472, DOI 10.1016/j.ejca.2007.11.025Nolen BM, 2008, BREAST CANCER RES, V10, DOI 10.1186/bcr2096Brogren H, 2008, THROMB RES, V122, P271, DOI 10.1016/j.thromres.2008.04.008Varki A, 2007, BLOOD, V110, P1723, DOI 10.1182/blood-2006-10-053736Madsen CD, 2007, J CELL BIOL, V177, P927, DOI 10.1083/jcb.200612058Levenson VV, 2007, BBA-GEN SUBJECTS, V1770, P847, DOI 10.1016/j.bbagen.2007.01.017VAZQUEZMARTIN A, 2007, EUR J CANCER, V43, P1117GARCIA M, 2007, GLOBAL CANC FACTS FIMoore LE, 2006, CANCER EPIDEM BIOMAR, V15, P1641, DOI 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0980Borrebaeck CAK, 2006, EXPERT OPIN BIOL TH, V6, P833, DOI 10.1517/14712598.6.8.833Zannis VI, 2006, J MOL MED-JMM, V84, P276, DOI 10.1007/s00109-005-0030-4Jemal A, 2006, CA-CANCER J CLIN, V56, P106Silva HC, 2006, NEOPLASMA, V53, P538Chahed K, 2005, INT J ONCOL, V27, P1425Jain KK, 2005, EXPERT OPIN PHARMACO, V6, P1463, DOI 10.1517/14656566.6.9.1463Abe O, 2005, LANCET, V365, P1687Paradis V, 2005, HEPATOLOGY, V41, P40, DOI 10.1002/hep.20505Molina R, 2005, TUMOR BIOL, V26, P281, DOI 10.1159/000089260Furberg AS, 2005, CANCER EPIDEM BIOMAR, V14, P33Benoy IH, 2004, CLIN CANCER RES, V10, P7157Song JS, 2004, BLOOD, V104, P2065, DOI 10.1182/blood-2004-02-0449Schairer C, 2004, J NATL CANCER I, V96, P1311, DOI 10.1093/jnci/djh253Hellman K, 2004, BRIT J CANCER, V91, P319, DOI 10.1038/sj.bjc.6601944Roselli M, 2004, CLIN CANCER RES, V10, P610Zhou AW, 2003, NAT STRUCT BIOL, V10, P541, DOI 10.1038/nsb943Hapke S, 2003, BIOL CHEM, V384, P1073Miller JC, 2003, PROTEOMICS, V3, P56Amirkhosravi A, 2002, BLOOD COAGUL FIBRIN, V13, P505Bonello N, 2002, HUM REPROD, V17, P2272Li JN, 2002, CLIN CHEM, V48, P1296Louhimo J, 2002, ANTICANCER RES, V22, P1759Knezevic V, 2001, PROTEOMICS, V1, P1271Di Micco P, 2001, DIGEST LIVER DIS, V33, P546Ferrigno D, 2001, EUR RESPIR J, V17, P667Webb DJ, 2001, J CELL BIOL, V152, P741Gion M, 2001, EUR J CANCER, V37, P355Schonbeck U, 2001, CELL MOL LIFE SCI, V58, P4Blackwell K, 2000, J CLIN ONCOL, V18, P600Carriero MV, 1999, CANCER RES, V59, P5307Antman K, 1999, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V281, P1470Loskutoff DJ, 1999, APMIS, V107, P54Molina R, 1998, BREAST CANCER RES TR, V51, P109Bajou K, 1998, NAT MED, V4, P923Chan DW, 1997, J CLIN ONCOL, V15, P2322Chu KC, 1996, J NATL CANCER I, V88, P1571vanDalen A, 1996, ANTICANCER RES, V16, P2345Yamamoto N, 1996, CANCER RES, V56, P2827KOCH AE, 1995, NATURE, V376, P517HADDAD JG, 1995, J STEROID BIOCHEM, V53, P579FOEKENS JA, 1994, J CLIN ONCOL, V12, P1648GEARING AJH, 1993, IMMUNOL TODAY, V14, P506HUTCHENS TW, 1993, RAPID COMMUN MASS SP, V7, P576DECLERCK PJ, 1992, J BIOL CHEM, V267, P11693GABRIJELCIC D, 1992, AGENTS ACTIONS S, V38, P350BIEGLMAYER C, 1991, TUMOR BIOL, V12, P138DNISTRIAN AM, 1991, TUMOR BIOL, V12, P82VANDALEN A, 1990, TUMOR BIOL, V11, P189KARAS M, 1988, ANAL CHEM, V60, P2299, DOI 10.1021/ac00171a028LERNER WA, 1983, INT J CANCER, V31, P463WESTGARD JO, 1981, CLIN CHEM, V27, P493TROUSSEAU A, 1865, CLIN MED HOTEL DIEU, V3, P654*R PROJ, R PROJ STAT COMP1

Impact of clinical phenotypes on management and outcomes in European atrial fibrillation patients: a report from the ESC-EHRA EURObservational Research Programme in AF (EORP-AF) General Long-Term Registry

Background: Epidemiological studies in atrial fibrillation (AF) illustrate that clinical complexity increase the risk of major adverse outcomes. We aimed to describe European AF patients\u2019 clinical phenotypes and analyse the differential clinical course. Methods: We performed a hierarchical cluster analysis based on Ward\u2019s Method and Squared Euclidean Distance using 22 clinical binary variables, identifying the optimal number of clusters. We investigated differences in clinical management, use of healthcare resources and outcomes in a cohort of European AF patients from a Europe-wide observational registry. Results: A total of 9363 were available for this analysis. We identified three clusters: Cluster 1 (n = 3634; 38.8%) characterized by older patients and prevalent non-cardiac comorbidities; Cluster 2 (n = 2774; 29.6%) characterized by younger patients with low prevalence of comorbidities; Cluster 3 (n = 2955;31.6%) characterized by patients\u2019 prevalent cardiovascular risk factors/comorbidities. Over a mean follow-up of 22.5 months, Cluster 3 had the highest rate of cardiovascular events, all-cause death, and the composite outcome (combining the previous two) compared to Cluster 1 and Cluster 2 (all P <.001). An adjusted Cox regression showed that compared to Cluster 2, Cluster 3 (hazard ratio (HR) 2.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.27\u20133.62; HR 3.42, 95%CI 2.72\u20134.31; HR 2.79, 95%CI 2.32\u20133.35), and Cluster 1 (HR 1.88, 95%CI 1.48\u20132.38; HR 2.50, 95%CI 1.98\u20133.15; HR 2.09, 95%CI 1.74\u20132.51) reported a higher risk for the three outcomes respectively. Conclusions: In European AF patients, three main clusters were identified, differentiated by differential presence of comorbidities. Both non-cardiac and cardiac comorbidities clusters were found to be associated with an increased risk of major adverse outcomes

Mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international cohort study

Background: The impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on postoperative recovery needs to be understood to inform clinical decision making during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reports 30-day mortality and pulmonary complication rates in patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: This international, multicentre, cohort study at 235 hospitals in 24 countries included all patients undergoing surgery who had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality and was assessed in all enrolled patients. The main secondary outcome measure was pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or unexpected postoperative ventilation. Findings: This analysis includes 1128 patients who had surgery between Jan 1 and March 31, 2020, of whom 835 (74·0%) had emergency surgery and 280 (24·8%) had elective surgery. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed preoperatively in 294 (26·1%) patients. 30-day mortality was 23·8% (268 of 1128). Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (51·2%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 38·0% (219 of 577), accounting for 81·7% (219 of 268) of all deaths. In adjusted analyses, 30-day mortality was associated with male sex (odds ratio 1·75 [95% CI 1·28–2·40], p\textless0·0001), age 70 years or older versus younger than 70 years (2·30 [1·65–3·22], p\textless0·0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists grades 3–5 versus grades 1–2 (2·35 [1·57–3·53], p\textless0·0001), malignant versus benign or obstetric diagnosis (1·55 [1·01–2·39], p=0·046), emergency versus elective surgery (1·67 [1·06–2·63], p=0·026), and major versus minor surgery (1·52 [1·01–2·31], p=0·047). Interpretation: Postoperative pulmonary complications occur in half of patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with high mortality. Thresholds for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic should be higher than during normal practice, particularly in men aged 70 years and older. Consideration should be given for postponing non-urgent procedures and promoting non-operative treatment to delay or avoid the need for surgery. Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, NIHR Academy, Sarcoma UK, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research