MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4405041593 · doi:10.1182/blood-2024-193994

Identification of Novel Protein Biomarkers in Bone Marrow Interstitial Fluid Links Coagulation Cascade Proteins to Survival Outcomes in Multiple Myeloma

2024· article· en· W4405041593 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Samuel Cutler, Amy M. Trottier, Daniel Gaston, Nicholas Forward, Darrell White, Alfredo H. De La Torre, Manal O. Elnenaei

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Établissements canadiensHealth Sciences CentreQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreNova Scotia Health AuthorityDalhousie University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMultiple myelomaBone marrowMedicineCoagulationImmunologyMyeloma proteinCancer researchPathologyInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction: Multiple myeloma (MM), the second most prevalent blood cancer, carries high morbidity with variability in clinical progression among patients that necessitates accurate risk stratification for effective therapy and life planning. Proteomic characterization of MM has been limited, but recent advancements in plasma proteomics now enable large-scale deep-proteomic profiling. In this study, we profiled the bone marrow interstitial fluid (BMIF) of 120 patients, including 83 with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM), 17 with relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM), 7 with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS), 7 with smoldering MM (SMM), and 5 non-MM individuals. Methods: Sample Prep and Proteomics: 120 BMIF samples from the myeloma tumor bank at the QEII Hospital (Halifax, NS, Canada) were processed at Seer™ (Redwood, CA) using the Proteograph™ XT. Peptides were analyzed by liquid chromatography coupled mass spectrometry in data-independent acquisition mode, with mass spectra processed by DIA-NN (1.8.1) within the Proteograph Analysis Suit (PAS). Data Analysis: All p values were adjusted using Benjamini-Hochberg for multiple testing. Differential intensity analysis was performed on the PAS online platform. Hazard ratios (HR) for overall survival (OS) were determined via Cox proportional hazard modeling. Gene set enrichment employed the clusterProfiler R package. Patients were hierarchically clustered based on protein group (PG) intensity, and log-rank tests were used to assess survival differences between clusters. Prognostic independence was evaluated using multivariate Cox proportional hazard modeling. Wilcoxon and Chi-square tests were used to analyze associations with continuous and categorical clinical covariates, respectively. Results: On average, 8,903 PGs were identified per sample, with a total of 11,128 PGs identified across the entire cohort. Of these, 4,190 PGs were common to all samples. We assessed differential PG intensity between NDMM and its precursor conditions (MGUS and SMM). Several plasma cell-associated proteins were significantly more intense in NDMM (p < 1x10-5), including SDC1 (CD138), TNFRSF17 (BCMA), and IRF4 (MUM1). The intensity of these proteins correlated with bone marrow plasma cell burden (SDC1: R2 = 0.23, p = 0.002; TNFRSF17: R2 = 0.17, p = 0.011; IRF4: R2 = 0.23, P = 0.001). To identify prognostic PGs in the NDMM group, we analyzed (A) PG-wise HRs for OS and (B) differentially intense PGs between the 15 longest- and 15 shortest-surviving NDMM patients. In (A), we found 68 PGs associated with increased survival and 65 with reduced survival. In (B), 321 PGs were more intense in long-survivors and 572 in short-survivors. Coagulation-related PGs (GO:0007596) were significantly over-represented in PGs associated with favorable prognosis in both analyses (A: p = 6.67e-06; B: p = 1.06e-21). Clustering NDMM samples based on coagulation cascade PGs identified three groups with significantly different survival outcomes (log-rank p = 0.00041). The group with the poorest outcome (N = 27) exhibited a median survival of 18.6 months and low intensity of all coagulation factors, while the group with the best outcome (N = 36) had a median survival of 66.3 months and high intensity of all factors. These differences remained significant (log-rank p = 0.003, HR 0.47) in a multivariate Cox model adjusting for RISS stage, age, bone marrow plasma cell burden, m-protein quantity, and platelet count. No significant associations were found between coagulation group and INR, PTT, albumin, beta-2 microglobulin, LDH, or EGFR, nor with a patient's use at diagnosis of anticoagulants or antiplatelets, antiglycemics, antihypertensives, or antilipemics. There were also no significant associations between coagulation groups and the chemotherapeutic classes used over the followup period. In RISS stage 2 patients, the coagulation profile also classified them into three groups with significantly different survival outcomes (log-rank p = 0.0001). Conclusion: Proteomic assessment of MM BMIF highlights coagulation-related proteins as significant independent biomarkers for risk stratification in multiple myeloma. These novel biomarkers offer critical insights beyond current prognostic markers, enhancing our capacity to predict patient outcomes and personalize treatment strategies.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,002
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,005

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,035
Tête enseignante GPT0,315
Écart entre enseignants0,280 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2024
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments→Travaux en français237 207→