Metabolic Biomarkers of Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Aerodigestive Tract: A Systematic Review and Quality Assessment

• Main Authors: Yan Mei Goh, Stefan S. Antonowicz, Piers Boshier, George B. Hanna
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Hindawi Limited 2020-01-01
• Series: Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity
• Online Access: http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/2930347

Introduction. Aerodigestive squamous cell carcinomas (ASCC) constitute a major source of global cancer deaths. Patients typically present with advanced, incurable disease, so new means of detecting early disease are a research priority. Metabolite quantitation is amenable to point-of-care analysis and can be performed in ASCC surrogates such as breath and saliva. The purpose of this systematic review is to summarise progress of ASCC metabolomic studies, with an emphasis on the critical appraisal of methodological quality and reporting. Method. A systematic online literature search was performed to identify studies reporting metabolic biomarkers of ASCC. This review was conducted in accordance with the recommendations of the Cochrane Library and MOOSE guidelines. Results. Thirty studies comprising 2117 patients were included in the review. All publications represented phase-I biomarker discovery studies, and none validated their findings in an independent cohort. There was heterogeneity in study design and methodological and reporting quality. Sensitivities and specificities were higher in oesophageal and head and neck squamous cell carcinomas compared to those in lung squamous cell carcinoma. The metabolic phenotypes of these cancers were similar, as was the kinetics of metabolite groups when comparing blood, tissue, and breath/saliva concentrations. Deregulation of amino acid metabolism was the most frequently reported theme. Conclusion. Metabolite analysis has shown promising diagnostic performance, especially for oesophageal and head and neck ASCC subtypes, which are phenotypically similar. However, shortcomings in study design have led to inconsistencies between studies. To support future studies and ultimately clinical adoption, these limitations are discussed.