Demonstrates the diagnostic potential of plasma fatty acid profiles in distinguishing gastrointestinal and lung cancers, suggesting valuable clinical applications.
Background: Cancer is a leading cause of mortality worldwide, characterized by metabolic reprogramming, including alterations in fatty acid (FA) metabolism. Plasma FA profiles hold promise as non-invasive biomarkers for the diagnosis and classification of cancer. Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the diagnostic potential of plasma FA profiles across four major cancers and to identify shared and cancer-type-specific metabolic alterations. Methods: We examine comprehensive FA profiling of plasma samples from 368 individuals, including patients with colorectal (CRC, n = 94), gastric (GC, n = 55), esophageal (EC, n = 53), and lung cancer (LC, n = 73), alongside 93 healthy controls (HCs) by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry. Data were analyzed using univariate statistics and multivariate modeling analysis. Results: Univariate analysis showed a shared set of altered FAs across the cancer types, demonstrating a shared pan-cancer metabolic shift. A comprehensive comparison revealed a remarkable shared pattern within the gastrointestinal (GI) cancers (GC, CRC, EC), while LC showed opposite trends for most FAs. Partial Least Squares Discriminant Analysis (PLS-DA) models on a 70% training set excellently discriminated each cancer type from HCs. The cross-validation of the model demonstrated robust internal performance with Q2 = 0.675 (LC), 0.559 (GC), 0.774 (CRC), and 0.628 (EC). This is followed by assessing the diagnostic accuracy on a 30% hold-out test set, with area under the curve (AUC) values of 0.686 (LC), 0.926 (GC), 0.905 (CRC), and 0.843 (EC). Conclusions: Plasma FA profiles may provide a potential source of biomarkers, capturing both shared cancer markers and distinct tissue-specific metabolic alterations. These findings highlight the high diagnostic and classificatory potential of FAs alterations in oncology.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hussain et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: