Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation
Volume 15, Issue 1, Supplement , Pages 33-38 , January 2009

Plasma Biomarkers in Graft-versus-Host Disease: A New Era?

  • Sophie Paczesny

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pediatrics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorrespondence and reprint requests: Sophie Paczesny, MD, PhD, University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center 6420,1500 E Medical Center Dr. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5942, Ph# 734-615-3342, Fax# 734-615-3947.
  • ,
  • John E. Levine

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pediatrics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
    • Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
  • ,
  • Thomas M. Braun

      Affiliations

    • Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
  • ,
  • James L.M. Ferrara

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pediatrics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
    • Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan

  • Image Result

    Antibody array heatmap of discovery set samples. This heatmap depicts relative protein values obtained from antibody microarrays after the removal of batch effects due to 3 separate analyses. Samples

    Antibody array heatmap of discovery set samples. This heatmap depicts relative protein values obtained from antibody microarrays after the removal of batch effects due to 3 separate analyses. Samples from 21 GVHD patients (A) and 21 GVHD+ patients (B) are represented. Only the antibodies giving the 35 smallest P values for differences between GVHD+ and GVHD patient plasma are shown. The P values compare the GVHD+ and GVHD samples. (Reproduced with permission [29].)

  • Image Result
    ROC curves of 4 individual discriminator proteins and the composite panel in the training set. Individual ROC curves for IL-2Rα, TNFR1, HGF, and IL-8 and the composite panel. (Reproduced with permissi

    ROC curves of 4 individual discriminator proteins and the composite panel in the training set. Individual ROC curves for IL-2Rα, TNFR1, HGF, and IL-8 and the composite panel. (Reproduced with permission [29]).

  • Image Result
    Low-risk and high-risk groups correlated with GVHD grade. The blue boxes represent the low-risk groups, and the red boxes represent the high-risk groups, in the training (A) and validation (B) sets. T

    Low-risk and high-risk groups correlated with GVHD grade. The blue boxes represent the low-risk groups, and the red boxes represent the high-risk groups, in the training (A) and validation (B) sets. The solid blue represents GVHD grade 0; the solid red, GVHD grade I-IV.

  • Image Result
    NRM and OS stratified by the biomarker panel in the training set (A) and validation set (B). In (A), the cumulative incidence of NRM and OS (determined by Kaplan-Meier) are plotted according to the pr

    NRM and OS stratified by the biomarker panel in the training set (A) and validation set (B). In (A), the cumulative incidence of NRM and OS (determined by Kaplan-Meier) are plotted according to the predicted probability of acute GVHD: low (—; n = 193) and high (---; n = 89) (P = .001 and .006, adjusted for age, donor type, HLA match, and intensity of conditioning, for differences in NRM and OS, respectively). NRM at 3.5 years is 15% (95% CI = 9% to 21%) for the low-risk group and 36% (95% CI = 24% to 48%) for the high-risk group. OS at 3.5 years is 53% (95% CI = 45% to 63%) for the low-risk group and 33% (95% CI = 22% to 48%) for the high-risk group. In (B), the cumulative incidence of NRM and OS of the 2 groups are plotted for the validation set: low (—; n = 93) and high (---; n = 49) (P < .001 and .02, adjusted as before, for differences in NRM and OS, respectively). NRM at 3.5 years is 11% (95% CI = 4% to 19%) for the low-risk group and 38% (95% CI = 23% to 53%) for the high-risk group. OS at 3.5 years is 59% (95% CI = 49% to 72%) for the low-risk group and 44% (95% CI = 31% to 63%) for the high-risk group. (Reproduced with permission [29].)

  • Image Result
    Intact protein analysis system workflow and in-depth analysis of plasma proteins. Plasma pooled from 10 patients with GVHD was labeled with the heavy isotope and compared with plasma pooled from 10 pa

    Intact protein analysis system workflow and in-depth analysis of plasma proteins. Plasma pooled from 10 patients with GVHD was labeled with the heavy isotope and compared with plasma pooled from 10 patients with no GVHD labeled with the light isotope. The specimens were then subjected to extensive fractionation (by ion-exchange chromatography and reverse-phase chromatography) before individual fractions were analyzed. This decreased the complexity of individual fractions subjected to analysis by liquid chromatography-MS/MS. (Adapted from [30].)

 Financial disclosure: See Acknowledgments on page 37.

PII: S1083-8791(08)00475-8

doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2008.10.027

Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation
Volume 15, Issue 1, Supplement , Pages 33-38 , January 2009