Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (30)
- Preprint (2)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (33)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (33)
Keywords
- Antimicrobial treatment (2)
- Biofilm (2)
- Complications (2)
- Deep brain stimulation (2)
- Low-virulent infection (2)
- Sonication (2)
- ARDS (1)
- Affective disorders (1)
- Biomarker (1)
- Bipolar disorder (1)
Highlights
• A panel of 20 biomarkers was identified capable of differentiating BD patients from controls.
• Excellent discrimination between established BD patients and controls.
• Good to excellent discrimination between misdiagnosed BD patients and first onset MDD patients.
• Fair to good discrimination between pre-diagnostic BD patients and controls.
• Study demonstrates the potential utility of a protein biomarker panel as a diagnostic test for BD.
Abstract
Background: Bipolar disorder (BD) is a costly, devastating and life shortening mental disorder that is often misdiagnosed, especially on initial presentation. Misdiagnosis frequently results in ineffective treatment. We investigated the utility of a biomarker panel as a diagnostic test for BD.
Methods and findings: We performed a meta-analysis of eight case-control studies to define a diagnostic biomarker panel for BD. After validating the panel on established BD patients, we applied it to undiagnosed BD patients. We analysed 249 BD, 122 pre-diagnostic BD, 75 pre-diagnostic schizophrenia and 90 first onset major depression disorder (MDD) patients and 371 controls. The biomarker panel was identified using ten-fold cross-validation with lasso regression applied to the 87 analytes available across the meta-analysis studies.
We identified 20 protein analytes with excellent predictive performance [area under the curve (AUC) ⩾ 0.90]. Importantly, the panel had a good predictive performance (AUC 0.84) to differentiate 12 misdiagnosed BD patients from 90 first onset MDD patients, and a fair to good predictive performance (AUC 0.79) to differentiate between 110 pre-diagnostic BD patients and 184 controls. We also demonstrated the disease specificity of the panel.
Conclusions: An early and accurate diagnosis has the potential to delay or even prevent the onset of BD. This study demonstrates the potential utility of a biomarker panel as a diagnostic test for BD.
Purpose: The role of obesity in glioblastoma remains unclear, as previous analyses have reported contradicting results. Here, we evaluate the prognostic impact of obesity in two trial populations; CeTeG/NOA-09 (n = 129) for MGMT methylated glioblastoma patients comparing temozolomide (TMZ) to lomustine/TMZ, and GLARIUS (n = 170) for MGMT unmethylated glioblastoma patients comparing TMZ to bevacizumab/irinotecan, both in addition to surgery and radiotherapy.
Methods: The impact of obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) was investigated with Kaplan–Meier analysis and log-rank tests. A multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed including known prognostic factors as covariables.
Results: Overall, 22.6% of patients (67 of 297) were obese. Obesity was associated with shorter survival in patients with MGMT methylated glioblastoma (median OS 22.9 (95% CI 17.7–30.8) vs. 43.2 (32.5–54.4) months for obese and non-obese patients respectively, p = 0.001), but not in MGMT unmethylated glioblastoma (median OS 17.1 (15.8–18.9) vs 17.6 (14.7–20.8) months, p = 0.26). The prognostic impact of obesity in MGMT methylated glioblastoma was confirmed in a multivariable Cox regression (adjusted odds ratio: 2.57 (95% CI 1.53–4.31), p < 0.001) adjusted for age, sex, extent of resection, baseline steroids, Karnofsky performance score, and treatment arm.
Conclusion: Obesity was associated with shorter survival in MGMT methylated, but not in MGMT unmethylated glioblastoma patients.