Showing paper detailed information
Citation Information
J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2016 Sep 10;129:299-309. doi: 10.1016/j.jpba.2016.07.028. Epub 2016 Jul 18.
Determination of low-molecular-weight organic acids in non-small cell lung cancer with a new liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method.
Klupczynska A, Plewa S, Dyszkiewicz W, Kasprzyk M, Sytek N, Kokot ZJ.
Analytical methods | ||
|---|---|---|
| Comparative study | #1 | |
| Chromatography | LC | |
| Ion source | ESI | |
| Positive/Negative mode | negative | |
| Mass analyzer | triple quadrupole | |
| Identification level | MS/MS | |
Sample information | ||
|---|---|---|
| Comparative study | #1 | |
| Country | Poland | |
| Specimen | serum | |
| Marker function | diagnosis | |
| Participants(Case) | Cancer type | adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma |
| Stage | I, II, III | |
| Number | 90 | |
| Gender (M,F) | 58, 32 | |
| Mean age (range) (M,F) | 64 ± 6.9 | |
| Smoking status | smoker, non-smoker, unknown | |
| Participants(Control) | Type | healthy |
| Number | 62.0 | |
| Gender (M,F) | 40, 22 | |
| Mean age (range) (M,F) | 62 ± 8.8 | |
| Smoking status | smoker, non-smoker, unknown | |
Data processing and metabolite identification | |
|---|---|
| Data processing software | Analyst software |
| Database search | – |
Statistics and concentration information | |
|---|---|
| Differential analysis method | Mann-Whitney U test |
| Classification method | ROC curve analysis |
| Survival analysis method | – |
Metabolites identified in the paper
| Metabolite | Comparative study | Author-emphasized biomarkers | Mean concentration (case) | Mean concentration (control) | Fold change (case/control) | P-value | FDR | VIP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| glutaric acid | – | V | 0.52 ± 0.23 μmol/l | 0.52 ± 0.2 μmol/l | 1 | 0.839 | – | – |
| succinic acid | – | V | 8.52 ± 2.23 μmol/l | 8.9 ± 2.04 μmol/l | 0.957303370786517 | 0.17954 | – | – |
| lactic acid | – | V | 1.89 ± 0.71 mmol/l | 2.2 ± 0.8 mmol/l | 0.859090909090909 | 0.00979 | – | – |
| 2-hydroxybutyric acid | – | V | 72.43 ± 33.38 μmol/l | 58.99 ± 33.39 μmol/l | 1.22783522630954 | 0.00283 | – | – |
| fumaric acid | – | V | 1.29 ± 1.15 μmol/l | 1.5 ± 1.22 μmol/l | 0.86 | 0.0003 | – | – |
| pyroglutamic acid | – | V | 26.99 ± 11.56 μmol/l | 35.28 ± 10.22 μmol/l | 0.765022675736961 | 0.0000000264363 | – | – |
| Metabolite | Comparative study | Author-emphasized biomarkers | Cutoff value | AUROC (95%CI) | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| glutaric acid | – | V | – | 0.515 | – | – | – |
| succinic acid | – | V | – | 0.564 | – | – | – |
| lactic acid | – | V | – | 0.624 | – | – | – |
| 2-hydroxybutyric acid | – | V | – | 0.643 | – | – | – |
| fumaric acid | – | V | – | 0.673 | – | – | – |
| pyroglutamic acid | – | V | stage I vs. control: 29.6; stage II vs. control: 29.6; stage III vs. control: 28 | 0.766; stage I vs. control: 0.752; stage II vs. control: 0.748; stage III vs. control: 0.799 | stage I vs. control: 0.8; stage II vs. control: 0.8; stage III vs. control: 0.8 | stage I vs. control: 0.7; stage II vs. control: 0.7; stage III vs. control: 0.7 | – |
Paper graphical summary
