3.1 Baseline characteristics of the recruited cohort
A total of 84 cases with LAM were included, among which seven (8.3%) were TSC-LAM and 77 (91.7%) were S-LAM. The average age was (40.0 ± 9.6) years old. Approximately 40% had a story of pneumothorax, only seven had chylothorax and one had chylous ascites. More than 1/4 (28.6%) patients were with retroperitoneal lymphangioleiomyomas and two (2.4%) were with enlarged mediastinal lymph nodes confirmed to be lymphangioleiomyomas by lymph node biopsy. Chylothorax, chylous ascites, and lymphangioleiomyomas were categorized as lymphatic involvement13, which accounted for 31.0% of the validation cohort. Renal angiomyolipomas were found in 29 (34.5%) patients, whereas liver angiomyolipomas were only present in five (6.0%). A number of 31 patients were treated with sirolimus after the baseline evaluation, one was treated with everolimus, and the remaining 52 (61.9%) patients did not receive any anti-LAM drugs. The pulmonary function tests showed a median FEV1/FVC of [74.6 (62.7-84.2)] %, an average FEV1%pred of (83.0 ± 26.7) %, and an average FVC%pred of (96.4 ± 17.7) %. The average DLCO%pred was (73.6 ± 27.0) %. The median serum level for VEGF-D was 1191.2 (644.7-2518.5) pg/mL (Table 2).
Table 2 Baseline clinical characteristics of patients with LAM
Variable
|
N=84
|
Female
|
84 (100)
|
Age, y
|
40.0 ± 9.6
|
TSC-LAM
|
7 (8.3)
|
S-LAM
|
77 (91.7)
|
History of pneumothorax
|
35 (41.7)
|
History of chylothorax
|
7 (8.3)
|
History of chylous ascites
|
1 (1.2)
|
Kidney angiomyolipomas
|
29 (34.5)
|
Liver angiomyolipomas
|
5 (6.0)
|
Mediastinal LAM
|
2 (2.4)
|
Retroperitoneal LAM
|
24 (28.6)
|
Pulmonary lesions only
|
33 (39.3)
|
Extrapulmonary lesions
|
51 (60.7)
|
Lymphatic involvement
|
26 (31.0)
|
Observation
|
52 (61.9)
|
Sirolimus treatment
|
31 (36.9)
|
Everolimus treatment
|
1 (1.2)
|
Pulmonary function test
|
|
FEV1, L
|
2.1 ± 0.7 (N = 48)
|
FEV1%pred, %
|
83.0 ± 26.7 (N = 48)
|
FVC, L
|
2.9 ± 0.5 (N = 48)
|
FVC%pred, %
|
96.4 ± 17.7 (N = 48)
|
FEV1/FVC, %
|
74.6 (62.7-84.2) (N = 48)
|
DLCO%pred, %
|
73.6 ± 27.0 (N = 45)
|
VEGF-D, pg/mL
|
1191.2 (644.7-2518.5)
|
Moesin, pg/mL
|
219.0 (118.7-260.5)
|
Data are presented as No. (%), mean ± SD or median (interquartile range), unless otherwise indicated. LAM = Lymphangioleiomyomatosis or Lymphangioleiomyomas; TSC = tuberous sclerosis complex; VEGF-D = vascular endothelial growth factor D; DLCO = Diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide.
Patients with OCLD averagely aged at (48.2 ± 10.9) and healthy control subjects had a median age of 37 (31-43) (Table 3). OCLD includes various definitive diagnoses such as SS, AAV, SLE, RA, etc., with SS being in the majority (29.5%). The median serum level of VEGF-D for patients with OCLD was 367.5(248.0-492.6) pg/mL. LAM was ruled out for patients with OCLD based on chest CT, pathological results, serum VEGF-D levels, and other clinical data (Table 3).
Table 3 Baseline clinical features of patients with OCLD and healthy control subjects
Variable
|
OCLD
|
Normal controls
|
N
|
44
|
37
|
Female
|
44 (100)
|
37(100)
|
Age, y
|
48.2 ± 10.9
|
37 (31-43)
|
ANCA-associated vasculitis
|
1(2.3)
|
NA
|
Systemic lupus erythematosus
|
1(2.3)
|
NA
|
Sjögren's syndrome
|
13(29.5)
|
NA
|
Familial vesicular disease
|
1(2.3)
|
NA
|
Rheumatoid arthritis
|
1(2.3)
|
NA
|
Unclassified connective tissue disease
|
2(4.5)
|
NA
|
Pathology does not support LAM
|
2(4.5)
|
NA
|
Qualified doctors have determined based on pulmonary CT and clinical data that LAM is not considered
|
23(52.3)
|
NA
|
VEGF-D, pg/mL
|
367.5 (248.0-492.6)
|
NA
|
Moesin, pg/mL
|
125.8 ± 59.9
|
49.6 (35.5-78.9)
|
Data are presented as No. (%), mean ± SD or median (interquartile range), unless otherwise indicated. OCLD = other cystic lung diseases; LAM = Lymphangioleiomyomatosis; CT = computerized tomography; VEGF-D = Vascular endothelial growth factor D.
3.2 Proteomics and bioinformatic analysis revealed DEPs between LAM and healthy subjects
Over 500 proteins were detected in the serum samples (Figure 3 A). Out of these, 31 proteins, related to lung disease, had shown significant differential expressions between patients with LAM and healthy woman, including 10 upregulated proteins and 21 downregulated proteins (Figure 3 B). The protein interaction networks and GO and KEGG pathways of upregulated DEPs were conducted (Figure 3 C, D). After conducting a literature search on the screened DEPs, we have preliminarily identified moesin, which is a cytoskeleton regulatory protein that shows high expression in various tumor tissues or cells and is associated with tumor invasion or metastasis21-23.
3.3 Moesin was increased in lung tissue and serum of the patients with LAM
Consistent with the proteomic findings, immunohistochemistry results confirmed that moesin was positively expressed in the LAM nodules as well as the surrounding microenviroment of patients with LAM, in comparison with that of healthy woman (Figure 4 A, B).
The serum level of moesin in patients with LAM was significantly higher [219.0 (118.7-260.5) pg/mL] compared to healthy women [49.6 (35.5-78.9) pg/mL] (P < 0.0001) (Figure 5 A). In patients with LAM, both moesin and VEGF-D levels [VEGF-D: 1191.2 (644.7-2518.5) pg/mL] were significantly higher compared to those in patients with OCLD [moesin: (125.8 ± 59.9) pg/mL, P < 0.0001; VEGF-D: 367.5 (248.0-492.6) pg/mL, P < 0.0001] (Figure 6 A, B). The moesin had an AUC of 0.929 (95% CI: 0.885-0.973) for LAM diagnosis from control subjects (Figure 5 B).
A cut-off level of 105.4 pg/mL showed sensitivity of 81.0% and specificity of 94.6%. We further studied the diagnostic value of moesin to differentiate LAM from OCLD. Moesin had an AUC of 0.730 (95% CI: 0.643-0.816, P < 0.0001) for differentiating LAM from OCLD with a cut-off level of 179.0 pg/mL showing sensitivity and specificity of 61.9% and 84.1 % (Figure 6 C), while VEGF-D had an AUC of 0.928 (95% CI: 0.887-0.969, P < 0.0001) (Figure 6 D) with a cut-off value of 589.0 pg/mL (sensitivity 82.1% and specificity 90.9%). Moreover, defining 882.1pg/mL as a cut-off VEGF-D showed sensitivity of 66.7% and specificity of 100%. We further constructed a composite score by combining moesin and VEGF-D (score = -5.252+0.007 × VEGF-D+0.01 × moesin) whose AUC was 0.939 (95% CI: 0.901-0.978 P < 0.0001) (Figure 6 E). The optimal cut-off point was 0.714, with sensitivity and specificity of 82.1% and 97.7%. Likewise, a cut-off value of 0.903 showed a specificity of 100% and sensitivity of 70.2%. While moesin may not be as effective as the VEGF-D alone, combining both proteins can enhance diagnostic accuracy. The composite score had a slightly preferable trend compared to VEGF-D alone, although the comparison between the AUC of VEGF-D and the composite score did not show a significant difference (P = 0.3426).
3.4 Moesin was associated with lymphatic involvement in patients with LAM
Moesin was markedly elevated in LAM patients with lymphatic involvement [(262.4 ± 115.4) pg/mL], compared with those with lung lesions alone [(192.9 ± 91.8) pg/mL, P = 0.0126] and lung lesion plus AMLs [(169.8 ± 96.6) pg/mL, P = 0.0032] (Figure 7 A). However, no significant difference in moesin was observed between patients with lung lesions plus AMLs and patients with lung lesions alone (P = 0.3587). Likewise, the level of VEGF-D was also higher in patients with lymphatic involvement [2635.8 (1308.9-3775.4) pg/mL] than that in those with lung lesions alone [1055.4 (626.4-1779.8) pg/mL, P = 0.0004] and those with lung lesions plus AMLs [865.2 (473.2-1636.8) pg/mL, P = 0.0004] (Figure 7 B). As well, there was no significant difference in VEGF-D between patients with AMLs and patients with lung lesions alone (P = 0.4611). It was implied that both moesin and VEGF-D may contribute to the lymphatic involvement in LAM.
3.5 Moesin was associated with impaired lung function in patients with LAM
There was no significant relationship between VEGF-D and any of spirometry parameters including FEV1%pred (P = 0.3142), FEV1/FVC (P = 0.1185), FVC%pred (P = 0.5348), and DLCO%pred (P = 0.0554), which was consistent with previous studies14,24,25. Noteworthily, moesin was negatively correlated with FEV1%pred (P = 0.0181, r = -0.3398), FEV1/FVC (P = 0.0067, r = -0.3863), and DLCO%pred (P = 0.0010, r = -0.4744) (Figure 8 A, B, C), although it had no significant correlation with VEGF-D (P = 0.3355) or FVC%pred (P = 0.3808). As reported, a FEV1%pred less than 70% was defined as impaired lung function19. It was observed that higher levels of moesin were found in patients with impaired lung function [(247.3 ± 65.8) pg/mL] compared to the other patients with an average FEV1%pred of (173.8 ± 87.1) pg/mL (P = 0.0084) (Figure 8, D). It suggested that moesin may act as an indispensable part of lung function and structure damage in patients with LAM.
3.6 Baseline moesin was elevated in patients with LAM receiving sirolimus treatment
Among the 84 LAM patients in this study, 31 patients received sirolimus treatment and one received everolimus treatment, whereas the remaining patients were in the observation group. The blood samples were collected before the treatment decision. Therefore, even though this patient received everolimus after baseline, she would still be classified into the "sirolimus treatment" group. The baseline moesin levels [252.6 (233.6-316.9) pg/mL] of patients receiving sirolimus/everolimus treatment were significantly higher than those in the observation group [139.0 (98.9-227.7) pg/mL, P < 0.0001] (Figure 9 A). Similarly, VEGF-D levels in the treatment group [2035.1 (1131.8 ± 3811.8) pg/mL] were significantly higher than those in the observation group [964.8 (513.7 ± 1636.9) pg/mL, P < 0.0001] (Figure 9 B). Since the timing of initiating sirolimus therapy for each patient was determined according to the guidelines after complete assessment, we wonder if there is a potential biomarker that could assist in deciding when to start the sirolimus treatment. Therefore, we created ROC curves for both biomarkers to detect the best cut-off value to establish the optimal sensitivity and specificity to predict sirolimus treatment. The AUC for moesin was 0.781 (95% CI: 0.678-0.884), with a best cut-off value of 233.3 pg/mL and sensitivity/specificity of 78.1%/78.9% (Figure 9 C). The AUC for VEGF-D was 0.757(95% CI: 0.651-0.864), with a best cut-off value of 1738.8 pg/mL and sensitivity/specificity of 65.6%/78.9% (Figure 9 D). We constructed a composite score integrating both biomarkers (score = -4.334+0.001 × VEGF-D+0.011 × moesin) to increase AUC to 0.861 (95% CI: 0.781-0.940), which was significantly higher than that of VEGF-D alone (P = 0.0411) or moesin alone (P = 0.0581) (Figure 9 E). The best cut-off value for the composite score was 0.349, with a sensitivity/specificity of 84.4%/76.9%.