Advances in analytics have resulted in metabolomic blood tests being developed for the detection of cancer. This systematic review aims to assess the diagnostic accuracy of blood-based metabolomic biomarkers for endoluminal gastrointestinal (GI) cancer. Using endoscopic diagnosis as a reference standard, methodologic and reporting quality was assessed using validated tools, in addition to pathway-based informatics to biologically contextualize discriminant features. Twenty-nine studies (15 colorectal, 9 esophageal, 3 gastric, and 2 mixed) with data from 10,835 participants were included. All reported significant differences in hematologic metabolites. In pooled analysis, 246 metabolites were found to be significantly different after multiplicity correction. Incremental metabolic flux with disease progression was frequently reported. Two promising candidates have been validated in independent populations (both colorectal biomarkers), and one has been approved for clinical use. Networks analysis suggested modulation of elements of up to half of Edinburgh Human Metabolic Network subdivisions, and that the poor clinical applicability of commonly modulated metabolites could be due to extensive molecular interconnectivity. Methodologic and reporting quality was assessed as moderate-to-poor. Serum metabolomics holds promise for GI cancer diagnostics; however, future efforts must adhere to consensus standardization initiatives, utilize high-resolution discovery analytics, and compare candidate biomarkers with peer nonendoscopic alternatives. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 25(1); 6–15. ©2015 AACR.

Gastrointestinal (GI) cancer remains an enormous healthcare burden worldwide. Alarm symptoms are often indicative of advanced disease, and hence presymptomatic detection constitutes ideal practice (1, 2). Currently, there are no FDA-approved tools for esophago-gastric cancer screening. In colorectal cancer, primary colonoscopy remains the most popular screening approach in at-risk groups, despite a high relative financial cost and associated clinical risk (3–5). Nonetheless, one third of at-risk patients remain unscreened (3). This unmet clinical need has led to the development of nonendoscopic screening tools that may be more acceptable to patients and could enhance early diagnosis; these range from breath testing for esophago-gastric cancer (6) to the recently approved fecal multitarget DNA testing for colorectal cancer (7, 8).

Metabolomics involves the study of small molecules (<1 kDa, i.e., metabolites) within a tissue or biofluid, most commonly utilizing mass spectrometry (MS) or nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy (9). When applied to bio-samples, this analytical process seeks to characterize the closest molecular element to the phenotype in the gene–protein–metabolite cascade (10). High-resolution metabolic snapshots attainable in timeframes of seconds-to-minutes, and tessellation of proven biomarkers to portable nanosensor platforms is often realistic (11–13). Moreover, being inherently small molecules, metabolites are more likely to be distributed to distant bodily compartments than nucleic acids or proteins, better supporting noninvasive testing (14). This illustrates the potential of metabolomic biomarkers over other molecular signatures—point-of-care, noninvasive diagnostics, prognostics, treatment monitoring, and surveillance (9, 15).

Despite more than 10 years of metabolomic research in cancer, this potential is yet to be fully realized for GI malignancies (16, 17). Tissue metabolomics offers more rapid diagnosis than conventional histology, yet it still requires invasive procedures for tissue acquisition, and cannot offer the depth of information of immunophenotyping (18, 19). Breath and urine analysis represents noninvasive clinical paradigms, but current work is limited to phase I biomarker studies with emphasis on compound identification rather than clinical applicability (16, 20, 21). Additionally, if no evidence of a biochemical mechanism can be elicited (e.g., corresponding hematologic perturbations), introducing tests based on these dislocated surrogates will be impeded. Finally, metabolomic methods often generate large data sets, which are subjected to complex statistics to overcome data-redundancy problems such as multicity error. However, these data are often poorly presented for the clinical audience despite consensus statements and recommendations designed to clarify and standardize the reporting of metabolomics (22–26).

Progress in GI cancer blood tests derived from systems biology has been extensively reviewed (27, 28). However, a blood test that assigns risk of colorectal cancer has recently been approved for clinical use in Canada, discovered and developed using the metabolomics approach (29, 30). As this field was omitted from earlier analyses, the aim of this study was to systematically assess available literature reporting hematologic metabolomic biomarkers from a clinical perspective. Taking advantage of endoscopy as a single reference standard, each contribution was evaluated with validated tools for appraising methodologic and reporting quality.

Two authors (S. Antonowicz and T. Wiggins) independently performed a comprehensive literature review using the search terms “*esophagus,” “stomach,” “small intestine,” “colon,” “rectum,” “neoplasm,” “metabo*omics,” “mass spectrometry,” “magnetic resonance spectroscopy,” “metabotyping,” and “metabolic profiling,” together with the medical subject heading (MeSH) terms “esophagus [Mesh],” “stomach [Mesh],” “small intestine [Mesh],” “large intestine [Mesh],” “neoplasm [Mesh],” and “metabolomics [Mesh].” Terms were combined with the Boolean operators AND or OR. Medline, Web of Science, The Cochrane database, Embase, and citation indices to July 1, 2015 were searched. Titles, abstracts, and full-texts were processed using a PRISMA algorithm (see Fig. 1).

Figure 1.

PRISMA flowchart describing the literature search strategy.

Figure 1.

PRISMA flowchart describing the literature search strategy.

Close modal

Selection criteria

Studies were included if they used an NMR or MS method to quantify and compare hematologic metabolites of patients with endoluminal cancer and controls. Studies using other analytical approaches, nonblood biospecimens, in vitro methodology, and non-English language full text, and efforts solely based on other ‘-omics’ sciences were excluded, in addition to two nested case–control series from epidemiologic studies (31, 32) and one which had serially sampled a single cohort (33). Given the intention to critically appraise on a basis of a diagnostic accuracy, these latter three were excluded as either the timing of the index test and reference standard were either too far apart (31, 32), or because no nondisease cohort was tested (33). In addition, hepatobiliary and pancreatic cancers were also excluded as they (i) have different, complex diagnostic gold standards, (ii) can arise in profoundly different metabolic states (e.g., hepatitis and liver failure), (iii) are less clearly driven by luminal carcinogens and microbiome interactions. Authors of conference abstracts that met inclusion criteria were contacted for relevant information.

Data extraction

A final list of 29 studies for data extraction was agreed. Two authors undertook data extraction and scoring; discrepancies were settled with a third author (S. Kumar). Domains included:

  1. Institution(s) and dates of research

  2. Hypothesis

  3. Number of patients, controls, samples; type of cancer(s)

  4. Metabolomic platform, global or targeted approach

  5. Sample collection and preparation procedures

  6. Statistical analysis

  7. Results, including diagnostic accuracy

  8. Conclusions and applicability

The primary outcome measure for extraction was any clinically relevant diagnostic metrics [sensitivity/specificity and/or area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC)] of the principle biomarker(s) or biomarker composite. These measures were solely extracted with respect to primary diagnosis (i.e., cancer or no cancer), rather than surveillance or treatment monitoring. Additionally, metrics describing multivariable modeling performance were also extracted, as were significantly discriminating metabolites.

To illustrate how widely the individual malignancies interact with the systemic metabolome, metabolites were pooled and networked to Edinburgh Human Metabolic Network (EHMN) subdivisions. Primarily, a Bonferroni correction was applied to those studies that had chosen not to account for multiplicity error (α/n, where n is the total identified metabolic features in that study). Those biomarkers that remained significant were pooled, and cancer-specific metabolite relationships were mapped to EHMN subdivisions using Kyoto Encyclopaedia of Genes and Genomes Compound identifiers, using the “Compound-Gene” function of the Metscape 3.2 plugin in Cytoscape (v3.0.2, National Resource of Network Biology, http://cytoscape.org; refs. 34–36). However, pooled analysis of clinical metrics was not felt to be appropriate given the heterogeneity in analytics.

Study quality

Methodologic and reporting quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool and STARD checklist, respectively (37, 38), taking endoscopic diagnosis as a universal reference standard. Reporting quality of the lower-half scoring studies was compared with the upper-half, and differences assessed with Fisher exact test. In an attempt to standardize the assessment of the risk of methodologic bias in the index test design, a simple 3-point score developed using consensus statements and applied as a subcomponent of the QUADAS-2 tool (23, 24). This looked for evidence of the use of internal standards or equivalent (metabolite quantification), external standards or equivalent (metabolite identification), or quality control measures; if any were omitted, the study was considered prone to bias.

The search strategy returned 29 studies, which included blood samples from 10,835 participants between 2007 and 2014 (see Tables 1 and 2 for methods and results, respectively). Sixteen studies included data from more than 100 patients; two studies recruited more than 1,000 patients.

Table 1.

Studies investigating hematologic metabolic biomarkers in endoluminal gastrointestinal cancer

Ref.StudyCancerTotal n (Cancer n)Biomarker discoveryAnalytical platform(s)Final classification methodDiagnostic indices of final methodSignificant featuresFeatures after MC
Studies investigating esophageal malignancies 
 (39) Djukovic 2010 EAC 26 (14) Targeted UPLC-TQMS 8 metabolites Not reported 5a 
 (40) Zhang 2011 EAC 118 (68) Nontargeted NMR PLS-DA MV model AUROC 0.89, Sen 88%, Sp 92% 
 (41) Zhang 2012 EAC 113 (67) Nontargeted LC-MS (& NMR) PLS-DA MV model AUROC 0.950, Sen 89%, Sp 90% 12 + 8 13a 
 (42) Zhang 2013 “EC” 50 (25) Nontargeted NMR & UPLC -diode array OPLS-DA MV model Not reported NMR > 25 UHPLC = 7 NMR = 12 UHPLC = 7 
 (43) Hasim 2012 ESCC 148 (108) Nontargeted 1 h-NMR OPLS-DA MV model Not reported P values not reported P values not reported 
 (44) Liu 2013 ESCC 152 (72) Nontargeted UPLC-ESI-TOFMS 15 metabolites Not reported 15 11 
 (45) Xu 2013 ESCC 228 (124) Nontargeted RRLC/ESI-MS LRM (7 metabolites) AUROC 0.961, Sen 90%, Sp 96% 18 3a 
 (46) Jin 2014 ESCC 110 (80) Nontargeted GC-MS OPLS-DA MV model Not reported 43 39a 
 (47) Ma 2014 ESCC 111 (51) Targeted HPLC PLS-DA MV model Not reported 12 11a 
Studies investigating gastric malignancies 
 (48) Yu 2011 GAC 28 (9) Nontargeted GC-MS PLS-DA MV model Not reported 12 3a 
 (49) Aa 2012 GAC 37 (17) Nontargeted GC-MS OPLS-DA MV model Not reported 15 0a 
 (50) Song 2012 GAC 60 (30) Nontargeted GC-MS OPLS-DA MV model Not reported 18 6a 
Studies investigating colorectal malignancies 
 (51) Zhao 2007 CRC 258 (133) Nontargeted LC-MS LRM (4 metabolites) Sen 82%, Sp 93% 10 8a 
 (52) Qiu 2009 CRC 129 (64) Nontargeted GC-MS; UPLC-MS OPLS-DA MV model Not reported 38 16a 
 (53) Ludwig 2009 CRC 57 (38) Nontargeted 1 H-NMR PCA MV Model Sen “about 70%” P values not reported P values not reported 
 (29) Ritchie 2010 CRC 443 (223) Nontargeted FTICR-MS, NMR, UPLC MS/MS 3 metabolites AUROC for each 0.97 50 50a 
 (54) Kondo 2011 CRC 50 (42) Nontargeted GC-MS PLS-DA MV model Not reported 0a 
 (55) Leichtle 2011 CRC 117 (59) Targeted ESI-MS/MS LRM (2 metabolites and CEA) AUROC 0.88 11 11 
 (56) Ma 2012 CRC 38 (30) Nontargeted GC-MS Hierarchical clustering (6 metabolites) Sen 94% 2a 
 (57) Nishiumi 2012 CRC 242 (119) Nontargeted GC-MS LRM (4 metabolites) AUROC 0.91, Sen 85%, Sp 85% 76 46a 
 (58) Li 2013 CRC 104 (52) Nontargeted DI±ESI FTICR-MS LRM (10 metabolites) AUROC 0.99, Sen 98%, Sp 100% P values not reported P values not reported 
 (59) Li 2013 CRC 360 (120) Nontargeted LC-MS/MS LRM (4 metabolites) Sen 89% Sp 80% 16 16 
 (30) Ritchie 2013 CRC 5,883 Targeted MS/MS TQMRM 1 metabolite Sen 85.7%, Sp 53%b n/a 
 (60) Tan 2013 CRC 204 (102) Nontargeted GC-TOFMS & UPLC-QTOFMS OPLS-DA MV model Sen 100%, Sp 100% 72 62a 
 (61) Wang 2014 CRC 36 (16) Nontargeted SPME-GC/MS PLS-DA MV model Not reported 
 (62) Zamani 2014 CRC 66 (33) Nontargeted 1 H-NMR OPLS-DA MV model Not reported P values not reported P values not reported 
 (63) Zhu 2014 CRC 234(66) Targeted LC-MS/MS PLS-DA MV model AUROC 0.93, Sen 96%, Sp 80% 42 7a 
Studies investigating multiple malignancies 
 (64) Miyagi 2011 GAC 1,383 (199) Targeted HPLC-ESI-MS LDA AUROC 0.82–0.85 
  CRC 1,383 (199)   LDA AUROC 0.87–0.88 10 10 
 (65) Ikeda 2012 ESCC 50 (15) Nontargeted GC-MS 2 metabolites Sen 80%–81%, Sp 59%–90% 1a 
  GAC 50 (11)   2 metabolites Sen 70%–84%, Sp 71%–90%; 0a 
  CRC 50 (12)   3 metabolites Sen 54.5%–81.8%, Sp 66.7%–91.6% 12 0a 
Ref.StudyCancerTotal n (Cancer n)Biomarker discoveryAnalytical platform(s)Final classification methodDiagnostic indices of final methodSignificant featuresFeatures after MC
Studies investigating esophageal malignancies 
 (39) Djukovic 2010 EAC 26 (14) Targeted UPLC-TQMS 8 metabolites Not reported 5a 
 (40) Zhang 2011 EAC 118 (68) Nontargeted NMR PLS-DA MV model AUROC 0.89, Sen 88%, Sp 92% 
 (41) Zhang 2012 EAC 113 (67) Nontargeted LC-MS (& NMR) PLS-DA MV model AUROC 0.950, Sen 89%, Sp 90% 12 + 8 13a 
 (42) Zhang 2013 “EC” 50 (25) Nontargeted NMR & UPLC -diode array OPLS-DA MV model Not reported NMR > 25 UHPLC = 7 NMR = 12 UHPLC = 7 
 (43) Hasim 2012 ESCC 148 (108) Nontargeted 1 h-NMR OPLS-DA MV model Not reported P values not reported P values not reported 
 (44) Liu 2013 ESCC 152 (72) Nontargeted UPLC-ESI-TOFMS 15 metabolites Not reported 15 11 
 (45) Xu 2013 ESCC 228 (124) Nontargeted RRLC/ESI-MS LRM (7 metabolites) AUROC 0.961, Sen 90%, Sp 96% 18 3a 
 (46) Jin 2014 ESCC 110 (80) Nontargeted GC-MS OPLS-DA MV model Not reported 43 39a 
 (47) Ma 2014 ESCC 111 (51) Targeted HPLC PLS-DA MV model Not reported 12 11a 
Studies investigating gastric malignancies 
 (48) Yu 2011 GAC 28 (9) Nontargeted GC-MS PLS-DA MV model Not reported 12 3a 
 (49) Aa 2012 GAC 37 (17) Nontargeted GC-MS OPLS-DA MV model Not reported 15 0a 
 (50) Song 2012 GAC 60 (30) Nontargeted GC-MS OPLS-DA MV model Not reported 18 6a 
Studies investigating colorectal malignancies 
 (51) Zhao 2007 CRC 258 (133) Nontargeted LC-MS LRM (4 metabolites) Sen 82%, Sp 93% 10 8a 
 (52) Qiu 2009 CRC 129 (64) Nontargeted GC-MS; UPLC-MS OPLS-DA MV model Not reported 38 16a 
 (53) Ludwig 2009 CRC 57 (38) Nontargeted 1 H-NMR PCA MV Model Sen “about 70%” P values not reported P values not reported 
 (29) Ritchie 2010 CRC 443 (223) Nontargeted FTICR-MS, NMR, UPLC MS/MS 3 metabolites AUROC for each 0.97 50 50a 
 (54) Kondo 2011 CRC 50 (42) Nontargeted GC-MS PLS-DA MV model Not reported 0a 
 (55) Leichtle 2011 CRC 117 (59) Targeted ESI-MS/MS LRM (2 metabolites and CEA) AUROC 0.88 11 11 
 (56) Ma 2012 CRC 38 (30) Nontargeted GC-MS Hierarchical clustering (6 metabolites) Sen 94% 2a 
 (57) Nishiumi 2012 CRC 242 (119) Nontargeted GC-MS LRM (4 metabolites) AUROC 0.91, Sen 85%, Sp 85% 76 46a 
 (58) Li 2013 CRC 104 (52) Nontargeted DI±ESI FTICR-MS LRM (10 metabolites) AUROC 0.99, Sen 98%, Sp 100% P values not reported P values not reported 
 (59) Li 2013 CRC 360 (120) Nontargeted LC-MS/MS LRM (4 metabolites) Sen 89% Sp 80% 16 16 
 (30) Ritchie 2013 CRC 5,883 Targeted MS/MS TQMRM 1 metabolite Sen 85.7%, Sp 53%b n/a 
 (60) Tan 2013 CRC 204 (102) Nontargeted GC-TOFMS & UPLC-QTOFMS OPLS-DA MV model Sen 100%, Sp 100% 72 62a 
 (61) Wang 2014 CRC 36 (16) Nontargeted SPME-GC/MS PLS-DA MV model Not reported 
 (62) Zamani 2014 CRC 66 (33) Nontargeted 1 H-NMR OPLS-DA MV model Not reported P values not reported P values not reported 
 (63) Zhu 2014 CRC 234(66) Targeted LC-MS/MS PLS-DA MV model AUROC 0.93, Sen 96%, Sp 80% 42 7a 
Studies investigating multiple malignancies 
 (64) Miyagi 2011 GAC 1,383 (199) Targeted HPLC-ESI-MS LDA AUROC 0.82–0.85 
  CRC 1,383 (199)   LDA AUROC 0.87–0.88 10 10 
 (65) Ikeda 2012 ESCC 50 (15) Nontargeted GC-MS 2 metabolites Sen 80%–81%, Sp 59%–90% 1a 
  GAC 50 (11)   2 metabolites Sen 70%–84%, Sp 71%–90%; 0a 
  CRC 50 (12)   3 metabolites Sen 54.5%–81.8%, Sp 66.7%–91.6% 12 0a 

NOTE: Where studies included discovery and validation cohorts, diagnostic metrics of the validation set included for analysis.

Abbreviations: EAC, esophageal adenocarcinoma; ESCC, esophageal squamo-cellular carcinoma; GAC, gastric adenocarcinoma; CRC, colorectal adenocarcinoma; UPLC-TQMS, ultra-performance liquid chromatography-triple quadrupole mass spectrometry; NMR, nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy; ESI-TOFMS, electrospray ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry; RRLC, rapid relaxing liquid chromatography; GC-MS, gas chromatography mass spectrometry; HPLC, high-performance liquid chromatography; FTICR-MS, Fourier transform ion cyclotron mass spectrometry; MS/MS, tandem mass spectrometry; TQMRM, triple quadrupole multiple reaction monitoring; DI, direct ionization; SPME, solid phase microextraction; PLS-DA, partial least squares discriminant analysis; ROC, receiver operating characteristic curve; PCA, principle component analysis; OPLS-DA, orthogonal projection to latent structures discriminant analysis; LRM, logistic regression model; LDA, linear discriminant analysis; MC, multiplicity correction; MV, multivariable; AUROC, area under receiver operating characteristic curve; Sen, sensitivity; Sp, specificity.

aWe applied a Bonferroni correction (α/n compared features).

bSpecificity not stated but calculated from available data.

Table 2.

Summary of study reporting quality

ItemDid the study:All studies (n = 30)Lower reporting studies (n = 15)Higher reporting studies (n = 14)Pa =
Identify the article as a study of diagnostic accuracy? 31% 7% 57% 0.005** 
State the research aims? 38% 20% 57% 0.046* 
Describe population selection criteria? 83% 73% 93% 0.186 
Describe patient selection criteria? 83% 80% 86% 0.535 
State pattern of recruitment (e.g., consecutive)? 14% 0% 29% 0.042* 
State if data collected before or after testing? 55% 33% 79% 0.018* 
State rationale of the reference standard? 62% 47% 79% 0.082 
Describe the technical details of the index test? 97% 93% 100% 0.517 
Define units and/or cut-offs for the index test and reference standard? 62% 33% 93% 0.001** 
10 Describe who carried out testing? 34% 20% 50% 0.095 
11 Describe whether those carrying out testing were blinded? 93% 93% 93% 0.741 
12 Describe methods of determining test accuracy and statistical uncertainty? 55% 33% 79% 0.018* 
13 Describe methods for calculating test reproducibility, if done? 45% 0% 93% <0.001*** 
14 State when the study was performed? 38% 33% 43% 0.442 
15 Describe basic demographics of participants? 55% 33% 79% 0.018* 
16 State the number of eligible patients not included, and the reasons why? 7% 7% 7% 0.741 
17 Give the time interval between the index test and reference standard? 14% 7% 21% 0.272 
18 Describe the severity of the disease in participants with defined criteria? 59% 40% 79% 0.041* 
19 Provide cross-tabulation, etc. of patient assignment by tests? 21% 7% 36% 0.070 
20 Describe adverse events during testing? 0% 0% 0% 1.000 
21 Provide estimates of diagnostic accuracy and statistical uncertainty? 34% 7% 64% 0.002** 
22 Describe how unclassified patients and outliers were analyzed? 10% 7% 14% 0.473 
23 Describe estimates of accuracy between subgroups or centers, if done? 21% 7% 83% 0.067 
24 Provide estimates of test reproducibility, if done? 10% 0% 50% 0.121 
25 Discuss the clinical applicability of the study findings? 90% 87% 93% 0.527 
ItemDid the study:All studies (n = 30)Lower reporting studies (n = 15)Higher reporting studies (n = 14)Pa =
Identify the article as a study of diagnostic accuracy? 31% 7% 57% 0.005** 
State the research aims? 38% 20% 57% 0.046* 
Describe population selection criteria? 83% 73% 93% 0.186 
Describe patient selection criteria? 83% 80% 86% 0.535 
State pattern of recruitment (e.g., consecutive)? 14% 0% 29% 0.042* 
State if data collected before or after testing? 55% 33% 79% 0.018* 
State rationale of the reference standard? 62% 47% 79% 0.082 
Describe the technical details of the index test? 97% 93% 100% 0.517 
Define units and/or cut-offs for the index test and reference standard? 62% 33% 93% 0.001** 
10 Describe who carried out testing? 34% 20% 50% 0.095 
11 Describe whether those carrying out testing were blinded? 93% 93% 93% 0.741 
12 Describe methods of determining test accuracy and statistical uncertainty? 55% 33% 79% 0.018* 
13 Describe methods for calculating test reproducibility, if done? 45% 0% 93% <0.001*** 
14 State when the study was performed? 38% 33% 43% 0.442 
15 Describe basic demographics of participants? 55% 33% 79% 0.018* 
16 State the number of eligible patients not included, and the reasons why? 7% 7% 7% 0.741 
17 Give the time interval between the index test and reference standard? 14% 7% 21% 0.272 
18 Describe the severity of the disease in participants with defined criteria? 59% 40% 79% 0.041* 
19 Provide cross-tabulation, etc. of patient assignment by tests? 21% 7% 36% 0.070 
20 Describe adverse events during testing? 0% 0% 0% 1.000 
21 Provide estimates of diagnostic accuracy and statistical uncertainty? 34% 7% 64% 0.002** 
22 Describe how unclassified patients and outliers were analyzed? 10% 7% 14% 0.473 
23 Describe estimates of accuracy between subgroups or centers, if done? 21% 7% 83% 0.067 
24 Provide estimates of test reproducibility, if done? 10% 0% 50% 0.121 
25 Discuss the clinical applicability of the study findings? 90% 87% 93% 0.527 

aFisher's exact test.

*, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01; ***, P < 0.001. Abridged questions given.

The majority (25/29) were phase I biomarker discovery studies investigating a single cancer. Nine studies investigated esophageal cancer (39–47), 3 gastric cancer (48–50), and 15 colorectal cancer (29, 30, 51–63). Two studies investigated more than one GI malignancy (64, 65). One group studying colorectal cancer built on earlier discovery findings in a large, multicenter, phase IV prospective cohort study (29, 30), and subsequently marketed a blood test that evaluates risk for colorectal cancer. A second group reported an external validation of earlier promising biomarker findings in an internationally distinct cohort (51, 59).

Reported methods were highly heterogeneous (see Table 1). With regards to sample procurement, there was variation in initial venepuncture receiver (7 types), blood fraction (plasma, serum, whole blood, and blood-headspace), sample standing time, centrifuge parameters, methods to check for hemolysis, and storage parameters. All studies reported using a standardized sample collection procedure. Sample preparation for chemical analysis was similarly diverse, with varied choices in deproteination, extraction, use of standards, and derivatization of analytes. Moreover, numerous instruments were employed including NMR (13%), gas chromatography–MS (30%), liquid LC-MS (33%), a combination of approaches (13%), and a minority of singly investigated techniques.

Methodologic and reporting quality

The risk of methodologic bias assessed with QUADAS-2 was often high or unclear (see Supplementary Fig. S1 and Supplementary Tables S1 and S2). Our assessment of the quality of the metabolomic approach found that 52% omitted appropriate measures to ratify compound identification or quantitation, and/or relevant quality control procedures. Only 34% of studies endoscopically assessed all participants including negative controls. In one fifth of studies, a reference standard was not clearly defined (e.g., “patients with cancer” instead of “endoscopically/histologically/radiologically confirmed cancer”). Other methodologic concerns included nonconsecutive patient selection, case–control design, and declared financial interest.

Reporting quality of these biomarker studies was medium-to-poor (median score 10/25, see Table 2 and Supplementary Table S3). Although four studies reported more than 70% of STARD items, no study achieved all items. There was limited reporting of details of patient recruitment, the reasons for exclusion of eligible patients, and how model outliers were interpreted. No study reported on adverse events encountered during testing (including endoscopic complications). Studies with more rigorous reporting standards were more likely to discuss the timing of recruitment, provide comprehensive demographics data, define cut-offs, and estimate test reproducibility and statistical uncertainty (all P < 0.05, see Table 2).

Study findings

All studies described the diagnostic potential of their methods, but only 56% reported sensitivity, specificity, and/or AUROC metrics. The majority of these (14 of 17 studies) primarily derived diagnostic indices directly from a multivariate model (MVM), usually based on partial least squares regression, orthogonal projection to latent structures, or logistic regression.

In total, the studies reported at least 528 unique blood metabolites that significantly differed between patients with GI cancer and controls (Ritchie and colleagues only reported a subset of significant markers; ref. 29). After homogenizing for multiplicity error, there were 246 significantly different metabolites (see Table 3 and Supplementary Table S4). Disease-specific metabolite relationships were visualized using Metscape networks, and a cancer-specific list of affected EHMN subdivisions was constructed (see Table 3). Elements of up to 34 of approximately 70 EHMN subdivisions were modulated. An example subnetwork is given in Fig. 2, demonstrating the extensive pathway participation and reciprocation of amino acids modulated in colorectal cancer (with elements of six amino acid EHMN subdivisions).

Figure 2.

Reporting frequency of significantly modulated hematologic amino acids in colorectal cancer. Metabolites have been networked using KEGG compound identifiers, and mapped to EHMN subdivisions (in bold). Each solid edge represents a singular enzymatic step (dotted edges reflect 2–3 steps). Node size and font size reflects reporting frequency. Of the displayed significant markers, only 2-oxobutanoate and 2-aminobutanoate were upregulated in cancer; all others were downregulated. Only connecting first neighbors are given owing to space limitations.

Figure 2.

Reporting frequency of significantly modulated hematologic amino acids in colorectal cancer. Metabolites have been networked using KEGG compound identifiers, and mapped to EHMN subdivisions (in bold). Each solid edge represents a singular enzymatic step (dotted edges reflect 2–3 steps). Node size and font size reflects reporting frequency. Of the displayed significant markers, only 2-oxobutanoate and 2-aminobutanoate were upregulated in cancer; all others were downregulated. Only connecting first neighbors are given owing to space limitations.

Close modal
Table 3.

Evidence for EHMN pathway modulation in endoluminal gastrointestinal cancer

Metabolic pathwayEACESCCGCCRC
Aminosugars metabolism    ✓ 
Arachidonic acid metabolism  ✓   
Bile acid biosynthesis  ✓ ✓ ✓ 
Biopterin metabolism ✓   ✓ 
Butanoate metabolism ✓  ✓ ✓ 
C21-steroid hormone biosynthesis  ✓ ✓  
De novo fatty acid biosynthesis ✓ ✓  ✓ 
Di-unsaturated fatty acid beta oxidation ✓ ✓  ✓ 
Endohydrolysis of 1,4-alpha-D-glucosidic polysaccharide linkages ✓    
Fructose and mannose metabolism ✓   ✓ 
Galactose metabolism ✓ ✓  ✓ 
Glycerophospholipid metabolism ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 
Glycine, serine, alanine, and threonine metabolism ✓ ✓  ✓ 
Glycolysis and gluconeogenesis ✓   ✓ 
Glycosphingolipid metabolism  ✓  ✓ 
Histidine metabolism ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 
Leukotriene metabolism  ✓  ✓ 
Linoleate metabolism ✓ ✓  ✓ 
Lipoate metabolism ✓  ✓ ✓ 
Lysine metabolism ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 
Methionine and cysteine metabolism ✓ ✓  ✓ 
Pentose phosphate pathway    ✓ 
Phosphatidylinositol phosphate metabolism  ✓  ✓ 
Porphyrin metabolism  ✓  ✓ 
Prostaglandin formation    ✓ 
Purine metabolism  ✓ ✓ ✓ 
Pyrimidine metabolism ✓ ✓  ✓ 
Saturated fatty acids beta-oxidation  ✓  ✓ 
Squalene and cholesterol biosynthesis  ✓ ✓  
TCA cycle ✓ ✓  ✓ 
Tryptophan metabolism ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 
Tyrosine metabolism ✓ ✓  ✓ 
Urea cycle and arginine, proline, glutamate, aspartate, and asparagine metabolism ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 
Valine, leucine, and isoleucine degradation ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 
Vitamin B3 metabolism    ✓ 
Vitamin B5 - CoA biosynthesis and pantothenate ✓ ✓  ✓ 
Vitamin B9 (folate) metabolism  ✓  ✓ 
Vitamin E metabolism  ✓   
Vitamin H (biotin) metabolism ✓  ✓ ✓ 
Total affected pathways 23 28 13 34 
Metabolic pathwayEACESCCGCCRC
Aminosugars metabolism    ✓ 
Arachidonic acid metabolism  ✓   
Bile acid biosynthesis  ✓ ✓ ✓ 
Biopterin metabolism ✓   ✓ 
Butanoate metabolism ✓  ✓ ✓ 
C21-steroid hormone biosynthesis  ✓ ✓  
De novo fatty acid biosynthesis ✓ ✓  ✓ 
Di-unsaturated fatty acid beta oxidation ✓ ✓  ✓ 
Endohydrolysis of 1,4-alpha-D-glucosidic polysaccharide linkages ✓    
Fructose and mannose metabolism ✓   ✓ 
Galactose metabolism ✓ ✓  ✓ 
Glycerophospholipid metabolism ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 
Glycine, serine, alanine, and threonine metabolism ✓ ✓  ✓ 
Glycolysis and gluconeogenesis ✓   ✓ 
Glycosphingolipid metabolism  ✓  ✓ 
Histidine metabolism ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 
Leukotriene metabolism  ✓  ✓ 
Linoleate metabolism ✓ ✓  ✓ 
Lipoate metabolism ✓  ✓ ✓ 
Lysine metabolism ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 
Methionine and cysteine metabolism ✓ ✓  ✓ 
Pentose phosphate pathway    ✓ 
Phosphatidylinositol phosphate metabolism  ✓  ✓ 
Porphyrin metabolism  ✓  ✓ 
Prostaglandin formation    ✓ 
Purine metabolism  ✓ ✓ ✓ 
Pyrimidine metabolism ✓ ✓  ✓ 
Saturated fatty acids beta-oxidation  ✓  ✓ 
Squalene and cholesterol biosynthesis  ✓ ✓  
TCA cycle ✓ ✓  ✓ 
Tryptophan metabolism ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 
Tyrosine metabolism ✓ ✓  ✓ 
Urea cycle and arginine, proline, glutamate, aspartate, and asparagine metabolism ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 
Valine, leucine, and isoleucine degradation ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 
Vitamin B3 metabolism    ✓ 
Vitamin B5 - CoA biosynthesis and pantothenate ✓ ✓  ✓ 
Vitamin B9 (folate) metabolism  ✓  ✓ 
Vitamin E metabolism  ✓   
Vitamin H (biotin) metabolism ✓  ✓ ✓ 
Total affected pathways 23 28 13 34 

Esophago-gastric cancer

Including multicancer studies, 10 studies investigated esophageal cancer: [three esophageal adenocarcinoma and seven esophageal squamo-cellular carcinoma (ESCC)]. In esophageal adenocarcinoma, Zhang and colleagues used a dual NMR and LC-MS approach to derive a MVM with good discrimination (AUROC 0.95; ref. 42). Several compounds were cross-validated on both platforms. All studies investigating ESCC were conducted in China and Japan. Xu and colleagues found that a logistic regression model based on seven metabolites was 90% sensitive and 96% specific for discriminating cancer from healthy controls in an independent validation set, after applying electrospray-MS to serum samples (45). Apart from one small series (65), this was the only study that applied diagnostic metrics to ESCC metabolomic data.

There were five metabolomic studies that investigated serum biomarkers solely in gastric cancer, and these were all of pilot character with less than 30 cancer patients included. The most promising findings were reported by Miyagi and colleagues, in which a decision model based on linear discriminant analysis of serum biomarkers from 199 patients had AUROCs of 0.874 to 0.881 (64).

Colorectal cancer

A total of 17 studies investigated colorectal cancer. In the United States, Zhao and colleagues were the first to apply a serum metabolomic approach to this disease in 2007 (51). They applied a targeted LC-MS analysis of lysophosphocholines (LPC) within a high-quality study design, and found significant and consistent reduction in many of these species in patients with colorectal cancer. Using four LPC species, a logistic regression model was built, which, in a separate validation cohort, demonstrated a sensitivity of 82% and specificity of 93% for detecting cancer. More recently, these findings were externally validated in China; Li and colleagues found a comparable reduction in the same biomarkers, with improved diagnostic sensitivity (89%), but reduced specificity (80%; ref. 59). In 2012, Leichtle and colleagues reported a targeted amino acid analysis, with fastidious standardization of “preanalytic” methods, and data handling (55). They found 12 amino acids to be significantly different between cancer and controls. However, AUROC statistics were unsatisfactory; glycine was the best discriminatory metabolite with an AUROC of 0.707. A combination of tyrosine, glycine, and chorioembryonic antigen (CEA) provided an improved AUROC when compared with CEA alone (AUROC 0.878 vs. 0.794). Nishiumi and colleagues also developed a risk prediction model based on four metabolites with an AUROC, sensitivity and specificity of at least 85%; however, they also commented on poor univariate performance (57). Moreover, the authors found significant inter- and intraday variability in metabolites of interest, and recommended caution with interpreting their findings.

Ritchie and colleagues undertook a robust biomarker discovery approach that initially utilized Fourier transform-ion cyclotron resonance MS to generate detailed metabolic signatures of serum from one Canadian and two Japanese populations (29). Instead of electron multiplier, count-based mass detection, this preconcentrating, ion-resonance technology offers ultra-high resolution over a wide mass range (66). After compound elucidation with NMR and MS/MS technologies, the authors were able to identify a large group of ultra-long, hydroxylated, polyunsaturated fatty acids (carbon length 26–38) that were persistently reduced in all stages of colorectal cancer. They developed a highly specific MS method for quantifying the most promising chemical species, termed GTA-440, and proceeded to a multicenter prospective cohort study (30). This single metabolite was 85.7% sensitive to predict colorectal cancer risk across all stages. The authors did not publish a specificity metric, although this is estimated to be 52.1% to 80.1% (aged-matched cohorts drawn from a “referred for colonoscopy” or general population, respectively).

In 2013, Tan and colleagues utilized both GC-MS and LC-TOF-MS platforms to assure wide coverage of serum metabolome in a targeted analysis of 158 metabolites, all verified with analytical standards (60). They derived a MVM that correctly classified all 80 participants in an independent validation set. After correction for multiplicity, 62 metabolites were significantly different between cancer and controls. Most recently, Zhu and colleagues improved a MVM of metabolite differences by adjusting with four clinical factors (63). The improved model was 96% sensitive and 80% specific for cancer discrimination.

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate blood metabolomics for endoluminal cancer. Across a large pooled cohort, at least 246 significant metabolic differences were reported after strict multiplicity correction, with only one being approved for clinical use to date (30). This test (Cologic, Phenomenome Discoveries, Saskatoon, Canada) was introduced in 2013, and is available for colorectal cancer screening by mail in Canada and Japan. The test is offered as an alternative to the fecal occult blood test, with better sensitivity and similar analysis times. There is currently no metabolomic blood test for upper GI endoluminal cancer.

Despite wide variety in sampling and analytics, almost all studies found significant differences between cancer and control groups, reaffirming the profound disturbance these cancers impart on the systemic metabolome. On the available evidence, elements of up to half of the EHMN subdivisions were affected. In colorectal cancer, established oncophenotypes were consistently reported (Table 3), including evidence of glycolytic switch, de novo lipogenesis, and amino acid mobilization (67–69). Upper GI malignancy displayed similarly broad metabolite differences despite being less extensively investigated.

A perceived weakness of systemic metabolomic biomarkers is that noncancer factors (e.g., nutritional state or the microbiome) have too great an influence to support a specific test. In this review, there was evidence that metabolite modulation was discernable at very early stages of GI cancer (30, 46, 52, 57–59). Several studies reported incremental metabolomic changes with invasive (41, 43, 58, 59) and metastatic (46, 70, 71) progression. In addition, three studies in colorectal cancer that were excluded from the appraisal process owing to their design nonetheless demonstrated pertinent findings to metabolomic dynamics. This included (i) no evidence of metabolic markers that predicted future risk of developing endoluminal malignancy (31, 32), and (ii) a normalization effect of the serum metabolome after successful colorectal cancer resection (33). These trends indicate that cell autonomous factors are likely to exert the dominant stimulus over systemic metabolic homeostasis, which is consistent with the constant and progressive influence associated with malignancy. Moreover, ultra-long polyunsaturated fatty acids, phosphocholines and amino acids were found to be similarly perturbed in both western and Asian colorectal cancer populations (only these three groups were studied in both cohorts). This geographic independence further suggests a fundamental function for these phenotypes in cancer biology.

The most frequently reported discriminating metabolites were amino acids (e.g., serum histidine, downregulated in five colorectal studies). These compounds are easily identified on both NMR and MS platforms, and several studies employed a targeted amino acid methodology (47, 55, 63, 64). However, amino acids were not specific as clinical cancer biomarkers. Certain fatty acids (30) and phospholipids (51) outperformed amino acids, presumably as they represent singular endpoints of specific oncotypic processes, rather than central elements of multilateral, highly interconnected networks that are variably perturbed (as illustrated in Fig. 2). Moreover, specific lipids may be underrepresented in this review as these are not easily resolved by NMR and represent challenging targets for MS analysis. The debate concerning the utility of sarcosine in prostate cancer further illustrates the problem of proposing central metabolic elements as specific biomarkers (72–74). Further, trace metabolic features will be discovered as the affordability and performance of high resolution analytics improves, whose clinical value may be less impaired by diverse pathway participation.

The findings of this review are subject to several limitations. The chief limitation is illustrated by study quality assessments, in that a significant proportion of studies were exploratory and offered results with low interpretable value. There is a particular paucity of evidence in gastric cancer. Second, all studies were conducted in a secondary care setting. The clinical applicability of these tests should be considered in study design; these technologies will not supersede endoscopy, as it is currently required to (i) provide tissue, (ii) plan surgery, (iii) distinguish synchronous pathology, and (iv) provide endotherapy (75, 76). Such nonendoscopic triage tools should therefore be deployed to minimize diagnostic uncertainty and improve service efficiency, and will be maximally influential in primary care (7, 77). By extension, augmenting metabolomic biomarker performance with clinical features and standard serologic markers was an uncommon but seemingly successful strategy (55, 63). Third, given that all studies reported positive findings also suggests a potential for publication bias. Finally, the highly heterogeneous methods necessitate caution with any attempt of synthesis, including the qualitative networking undertaken herein: this underlines the critical importance of adherence to standardization recommendations (22–26).

This review indicates that the analytical evolution of serum metabolomics may benefit GI cancer diagnostics. The best data in this study utilized consensus protocols to standardize sample procurement and processing, used high-resolution analytics, and clearly reported analyses of clinical value. Further discovery programs should be supported with refinement strategies for potential metabolic confounders (e.g., anemia, liver disease, and xenobiotics), and aim to test emerging diagnostic tools against similar primary care alternatives. Finally, validated biomarkers require adaptation from spectrometer-based protocols to point-of-care platforms, thus exploiting a major advantage of metabolomics over other molecular approaches.

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

G.B. Hanna received an award from the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) to support this work (NIHR-Diagnostic Evidence Co-operative at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

1.
Foster
MA
,
Attwood
SE
. 
Current guidelines fail young patients with oesophagogastric cancer
.
Gut
2002
;
51
:
296
7
.
2.
Vakil
N
,
Moayyedi
P
,
Fennerty
MB
,
Talley
NJ
. 
Limited value of alarm features in the diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal malignancy: systematic review and meta-analysis
.
Gastroenterology
2006
;
131
:
390
401
;
quiz 659–60
.
3.
Steele
CB
,
Rim
SH
,
Joseph
DA
,
King
JB
,
Seeff
LC
;
Centers for Disease, Control Prevention
. 
Colorectal cancer incidence and screening - United States, 2008 and 2010
.
MMWR Surveill Summ
2013
;
62
Suppl 3
:
53
60
.
4.
Holme
O
,
Loberg
M
,
Kalager
M
,
Bretthauer
M
,
Hernan
MA
,
Aas
E
, et al
Effect of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: a randomized clinical trial
.
JAMA
2014
;
312
:
606
15
.
5.
Schoen
RE
,
Pinsky
PF
,
Weissfeld
JL
,
Yokochi
LA
,
Church
T
,
Laiyemo
AO
, et al
Colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality with screening flexible sigmoidoscopy
.
N Engl J Med
2012
;
366
:
2345
57
.
6.
Kumar
S
,
Huang
J
,
Abbassi-Ghadi
N
,
Mackenzie
HA
,
Veselkov
KA
,
Hoare
JM
, et al
Mass spectrometric analysis of exhaled breath for the identification of volatile organic compound biomarkers in esophageal and gastric adenocarcinoma
.
Ann Surg
2015
;
262
:
981
90
.
7.
Imperiale
TF
,
Ransohoff
DF
,
Itzkowitz
SH
. 
Multitarget stool DNA testing for colorectal-cancer screening
.
N Engl J Med
2014
;
371
:
187
8
.
8.
Brett
AS
. 
Flexible sigmoidoscopy for colorectal cancer screening: more evidence, persistent ironies
.
JAMA
2014
;
312
:
601
2
.
9.
Nicholson
JK
,
Lindon
JC
,
Holmes
E
. 
'Metabonomics': understanding the metabolic responses of living systems to pathophysiological stimuli via multivariate statistical analysis of biological NMR spectroscopic data
.
Xenobiotica
1999
;
29
:
1181
9
.
10.
Mamas
M
,
Dunn
WB
,
Neyses
L
,
Goodacre
R
. 
The role of metabolites and metabolomics in clinically applicable biomarkers of disease
.
Arch Toxicol
2011
;
85
:
5
17
.
11.
Peng
G
,
Hakim
M
,
Broza
YY
,
Billan
S
,
Abdah-Bortnyak
R
,
Kuten
A
, et al
Detection of lung, breast, colorectal, and prostate cancers from exhaled breath using a single array of nanosensors
.
Br J Cancer
2010
;
103
:
542
51
.
12.
Shvartsburg
AA
,
Smith
RD
,
Wilks
A
,
Koehl
A
,
Ruiz-Alonso
D
,
Boyle
B
. 
Ultrafast differential ion mobility spectrometry at extreme electric fields in multichannel microchips
.
Anal Chem
2009
;
81
:
6489
95
.
13.
Xu
Zq
,
Broza
YY
,
Ionsecu
R
,
Tisch
U
,
Ding
L
,
Liu
H
, et al
A nanomaterial-based breath test for distinguishing gastric cancer from benign gastric conditions
.
Br J Cancer
2013
;
108
:
941
50
.
14.
Monteiro
MS
,
Carvalho
M
,
Bastos
ML
,
Guedes de Pinho
P
. 
Metabolomics analysis for biomarker discovery: advances and challenges
.
Curr Med Chem
2013
;
20
:
257
71
.
15.
Nicholson
JK
,
Holmes
E
,
Kinross
JM
,
Darzi
AW
,
Takats
Z
,
Lindon
JC
. 
Metabolic phenotyping in clinical and surgical environments
.
Nature
2012
;
491
:
384
92
.
16.
Abbassi-Ghadi
N
,
Kumar
S
,
Huang
J
,
Goldin
R
,
Takats
Z
,
Hanna
GB
. 
Metabolomic profiling of oesophago-gastric cancer: a systematic review
.
Eur J Cancer
2013
;
49
:
3625
37
.
17.
Liesenfeld
DB
,
Habermann
N
,
Owen
RW
,
Scalbert
A
,
Ulrich
CM
. 
Review of mass spectrometry-based metabolomics in cancer research
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2013
;
22
:
2182
201
.
18.
Yakoub
D
,
Keun
HC
,
Goldin
R
,
Hanna
GB
. 
Metabolic profiling detects field effects in nondysplastic tissue from esophageal cancer patients
.
Cancer Res
2010
;
70
:
9129
36
.
19.
Beckonert
O
,
Coen
M
,
Keun
HC
,
Wang
Y
,
Ebbels
TM
,
Holmes
E
, et al
High-resolution magic-angle-spinning NMR spectroscopy for metabolic profiling of intact tissues
.
Nat Protoc
2010
;
5
:
1019
32
.
20.
Pepe
MS
,
Etzioni
R
,
Feng
Z
,
Potter
JD
,
Thompson
ML
,
Thornquist
M
, et al
Phases of biomarker development for early detection of cancer
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2001
;
93
:
1054
61
.
21.
Markar
SR
,
Wiggins
T
,
Kumar
S
,
Hanna
GB
. 
Exhaled breath analysis for the diagnosis and assessment of endoluminal gastrointestinal diseases
.
J Clin Gastroenterol
2015
;
49
:
1
8
.
22.
Xia
J
,
Broadhurst
DI
,
Wilson
M
,
Wishart
DS
. 
Translational biomarker discovery in clinical metabolomics: an introductory tutorial
.
Metabolomics
2013
;
9
:
280
99
.
23.
Beckonert
O
,
Keun
HC
,
Ebbels
TM
,
Bundy
J
,
Holmes
E
,
Lindon
JC
, et al
Metabolic profiling, metabolomic and metabonomic procedures for NMR spectroscopy of urine, plasma, serum and tissue extracts
.
Nat Protoc
2007
;
2
:
2692
703
.
24.
Dunn
WB
,
Broadhurst
D
,
Begley
P
,
Zelena
E
,
Francis-McIntyre
S
,
Anderson
N
, et al
Procedures for large-scale metabolic profiling of serum and plasma using gas chromatography and liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry
.
Nat Protoc
2011
;
6
:
1060
83
.
25.
Lindon
JC
,
Nicholson
JK
,
Holmes
E
,
Keun
HC
,
Craig
A
,
Pearce
JT
, et al
Summary recommendations for standardization and reporting of metabolic analyses
.
Nat Biotechnol
2005
;
23
:
833
8
.
26.
Members
MSIB
,
Sansone
SA
,
Fan
T
,
Goodacre
R
,
Griffin
JL
,
Hardy
NW
, et al
The metabolomics standards initiative
.
Nat Biotechnol
2007
;
25
:
846
8
.
27.
Hundt
S
,
Haug
U
,
Brenner
H
. 
Blood markers for early detection of colorectal cancer: a systematic review
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2007
;
16
:
1935
53
.
28.
Tao
S
,
Hundt
S
,
Haug
U
,
Brenner
H
. 
Sensitivity estimates of blood-based tests for colorectal cancer detection: impact of overrepresentation of advanced stage disease
.
Am J Gastroenterol
2011
;
106
:
242
53
.
29.
Ritchie
SA
,
Ahiahonu
PW
,
Jayasinghe
D
,
Heath
D
,
Liu
J
,
Lu
Y
, et al
Reduced levels of hydroxylated, polyunsaturated ultra long-chain fatty acids in the serum of colorectal cancer patients: implications for early screening and detection
.
BMC Med
2010
;
8
:
13
.
30.
Ritchie
SA
,
Tonita
J
,
Alvi
R
,
Lehotay
D
,
Elshoni
H
,
Myat
S
, et al
Low-serum GTA-446 anti-inflammatory fatty acid levels as a new risk factor for colon cancer
.
Int J Cancer
2013
;
132
:
355
62
.
31.
Chadeau-Hyam
M
,
Athersuch
TJ
,
Keun
HC
,
De Iorio
M
,
Ebbels
TMD
,
Jenab
M
, et al
Meeting-in-the-middle using metabolic profiling-a strategy for the identification of intermediate biomarkers in cohort studies
.
Biomarkers
2011
;
16
:
83
8
.
32.
Cross
AJ
,
Moore
SC
,
Boca
S
,
Huang
WY
,
Xiong
X
,
Stolzenberg-Solomon
R
, et al
A prospective study of serum metabolites and colorectal cancer risk
.
Cancer
2014
;
120
:
3049
57
.
33.
Ma
Y
,
Liu
W
,
Peng
J
,
Huang
L
,
Zhang
P
,
Zhao
X
, et al
A pilot study of gas chromatograph/mass spectrometry-based serum metabolic profiling of colorectal cancer after operation
.
Mol Biol Rep
2010
;
37
:
1403
11
.
34.
Ma
H
,
Sorokin
A
,
Mazein
A
,
Selkov
A
,
Selkov
E
,
Demin
O
, et al
The Edinburgh Human Metabolic Network reconstruction and its functional analysis
.
Mol Syst Biol
2007
;
3
:
135
.
35.
Kanehisa
M
,
Goto
S
,
Sato
Y
,
Furumichi
M
,
Tanabe
M
. 
KEGG for integration and interpretation of large-scale molecular data sets
.
Nucleic Acids Res
2012
;
40
:
D109
14
.
36.
Gao
J
,
Tarcea
VG
,
Karnovsky
A
,
Mirel
BR
,
Weymouth
TE
,
Beecher
CW
, et al
Metscape: a Cytoscape plug-in for visualizing and interpreting metabolomic data in the context of human metabolic networks
.
Bioinformatics
2010
;
26
:
971
3
.
37.
Bossuyt
PM
,
Reitsma
JB
,
Bruns
DE
,
Gatsonis
CA
,
Glasziou
PP
,
Irwig
LM
, et al
Towards complete and, accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative
.
Brit Med J
2003
;
326
:
41
4
.
38.
Whiting
PF
,
Rutjes
AW
,
Westwood
ME
,
Mallett
S
,
Deeks
JJ
,
Reitsma
JB
, et al
QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies
.
Ann Intern Med
2011
;
155
:
529
36
.
39.
Djukovic
D
,
Baniasadi
HR
,
Kc
R
,
Hammoud
Z
,
Raftery
D
. 
Targeted serum metabolite profiling of nucleosides in esophageal adenocarcinoma
.
Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom
2010
;
24
:
3057
62
.
40.
Zhang
J
,
Liu
L
,
Wei
S
,
Nagana Gowda
GA
,
Hammoud
Z
,
Kesler
KA
, et al
Metabolomics study of esophageal adenocarcinoma
.
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
2011
;
141
:
469
75
,
75 e1–4
.
41.
Zhang
J
,
Bowers
J
,
Liu
L
,
Wei
S
,
Gowda
GA
,
Hammoud
Z
, et al
Esophageal cancer metabolite biomarkers detected by LC-MS and NMR methods
.
PLoS One
2012
;
7
:
e30181
.
42.
Zhang
X
,
Xu
L
,
Shen
J
,
Cao
B
,
Cheng
T
,
Zhao
T
, et al
Metabolic signatures of esophageal cancer: NMR-based metabolomics and UHPLC-based focused metabolomics of blood serum
.
Biochim Biophys Acta
2013
;
1832
:
1207
16
.
43.
Hasim
A
,
Ma
H
,
Mamtimin
B
,
Abudula
A
,
Niyaz
M
,
Zhang
LW
, et al
Revealing the metabonomic variation of EC using (1)H-NMR spectroscopy and its association with the clinicopathological characteristics
.
Mol Biol Rep
2012
;
39
:
8955
64
.
44.
Liu
R
,
Peng
Y
,
Li
X
,
Wang
Y
,
Pan
E
,
Guo
W
, et al
Identification of plasma metabolomic profiling for diagnosis of esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma using an UPLC/TOF/MS platform
.
Int J Mol Sci
2013
;
14
:
8899
911
.
45.
Xu
J
,
Chen
Y
,
Zhang
R
,
Song
Y
,
Cao
J
,
Bi
N
, et al
Global and targeted metabolomics of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma discovers potential diagnostic and therapeutic biomarkers
.
Mol Cell Proteomics
2013
;
12
:
1306
18
.
46.
Jin
H
,
Qiao
F
,
Chen
L
,
Lu
C
,
Xu
L
,
Gao
X
. 
Serum metabolomic signatures of lymph node metastasis of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma
.
J Proteome Res
2014
;
13
:
4091
103
.
47.
Ma
H
,
Hasim
A
,
Mamtimin
B
,
Kong
B
,
Zhang
HP
,
Sheyhidin
I
. 
Plasma free amino acid profiling of esophageal cancer using high-performance liquid chromatography spectroscopy
.
World J Gastroenterol
2014
;
20
:
8653
9
.
48.
Yu
L
,
Aa
J
,
Xu
J
,
Sun
M
,
Qian
S
,
Cheng
L
, et al
Metabolomic phenotype of gastric cancer and precancerous stages based on gas chromatography time-of-flight mass spectrometry
.
J Gastroenterol Hepatol
2011
;
26
:
1290
7
.
49.
Aa
JY
,
Yu
LZ
,
Sun
M
,
Liu
LS
,
Li
MJ
,
Cao
B
, et al
Metabolic features of the tumor microenvironment of gastric cancer and the link to the systemic macroenvironment
.
Metabolomics
2012
;
8
:
164
73
.
50.
Song
H
,
Peng
J-S
,
Yao
D-S
,
Yang
Z-L
,
Liu
H-L
,
Zeng
Y-K
, et al
Serum metabolic profiling of human gastric cancer based on gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
.
Braz J Med Biol Res
2012
;
45
:
78
85
.
51.
Zhao
Z
,
Xiao
Y
,
Elson
P
,
Tan
H
,
Plummer
SJ
,
Berk
M
, et al
Plasma lysophosphatidylcholine levels: potential biomarkers for colorectal cancer
.
J Clin Oncol
2007
;
25
:
2696
701
.
52.
Qiu
Y
,
Cai
G
,
Su
M
,
Chen
T
,
Zheng
X
,
Xu
Y
, et al
Serum metabolite profiling of human colorectal cancer using GC-TOFMS and UPLC-QTOFMS
.
J Proteome Res
2009
;
8
:
4844
50
.
53.
Ludwig
C
,
Ward
DG
,
Martin
A
,
Viant
MR
,
Ismail
T
,
Johnson
PJ
, et al
Fast targeted multidimensional NMR metabolomics of colorectal cancer
.
Magn Reson Chem
2009
;
47
Suppl 1
:
S68
73
.
54.
Kondo
Y
,
Nishiumi
S
,
Shinohara
M
,
Hatano
N
,
Ikeda
A
,
Yoshie
T
, et al
Serum fatty acid profiling of colorectal cancer by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
.
Biomarkers Med
2011
;
5
:
451
60
.
55.
Leichtle
AB
,
Nuoffer
JM
,
Ceglarek
U
,
Kase
J
,
Conrad
T
,
Witzigmann
H
, et al
Serum amino acid profiles and their alterations in colorectal cancer
.
Metabolomics
2012
;
8
:
643
53
.
56.
Ma
Y
,
Zhang
P
,
Wang
F
,
Liu
W
,
Yang
J
,
Qin
H
. 
An integrated proteomics and metabolomics approach for defining oncofetal biomarkers in the colorectal cancer
.
Ann Surg
2012
;
255
:
720
30
.
57.
Nishiumi
S
,
Kobayashi
T
,
Ikeda
A
,
Yoshie
T
,
Kibi
M
,
Izumi
Y
, et al
A novel serum metabolomics-based diagnostic approach for colorectal cancer
.
PLoS ONE [Electronic Resource]
2012
;
7
:
e40459
.
58.
Li
F
,
Qin
X
,
Chen
H
,
Qiu
L
,
Guo
Y
,
Liu
H
, et al
Lipid profiling for early diagnosis and progression of colorectal cancer using direct-infusion electrospray ionization Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry
.
Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom
2013
;
27
:
24
34
.
59.
Li
S
,
Guo
B
,
Song
J
,
Deng
X
,
Cong
Y
,
Li
P
, et al
Plasma choline-containing phospholipids: potential biomarkers for colorectal cancer progression
.
Metabolomics
2013
;
9
:
202
12
.
60.
Tan
B
,
Qiu
Y
,
Zou
X
,
Chen
T
,
Xie
G
,
Cheng
Y
, et al
Metabonomics identifies serum metabolite markers of colorectal cancer
.
J Proteome Res
2013
;
12
:
3000
9
.
61.
Wang
C
,
Li
P
,
Lian
A
,
Sun
B
,
Wang
X
,
Guo
L
, et al
Blood volatile compounds as biomarkers for colorectal cancer
.
Cancer Biol Ther
2014
;
15
:
200
6
.
62.
Zamani
Z
,
Arjmand
M
,
Vahabi
F
,
Eshaq Hosseini
SM
,
Fazeli
SM
,
Iravani
A
, et al
A metabolic study on colon cancer using (1)h nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy
.
Biochem Res Int
2014
;
2014
:
348712
.
63.
Zhu
J
,
Djukovic
D
,
Deng
L
,
Gu
H
,
Himmati
F
,
Chiorean
EG
, et al
Colorectal cancer detection using targeted serum metabolic profiling
.
J Proteome Res
2014
;
13
:
4120
30
.
64.
Miyagi
Y
,
Higashiyama
M
,
Gochi
A
,
Akaike
M
,
Ishikawa
T
,
Miura
T
, et al
Plasma free amino acid profiling of five types of cancer patients and its application for early detection
.
PLoS One
2011
;
6
:
e24143
.
65.
Ikeda
A
,
Nishiumi
S
,
Shinohara
M
,
Yoshie
T
,
Hatano
N
,
Okuno
T
, et al
Serum metabolomics as a novel diagnostic approach for gastrointestinal cancer
.
Biomed Chromatogr
2012
;
26
:
548
58
.
66.
Brown
SC
,
Kruppa
G
,
Dasseux
JL
. 
Metabolomics applications of FT-ICR mass spectrometry
.
Mass Spectrom Rev
2005
;
24
:
223
31
.
67.
Bui
T
,
Thompson
CB
. 
Cancer's sweet tooth
.
Cancer Cell
2006
;
9
:
419
20
.
68.
Menendez
JA
,
Lupu
R
. 
Fatty acid synthase and the lipogenic phenotype in cancer pathogenesis
.
Nat Rev Cancer
2007
;
7
:
763
77
.
69.
Warburg
O
,
Wind
F
,
Negelein
E
. 
The metabolism of tumors in the body
.
J Gen Physiol
1927
;
8
:
519
30
.
70.
Bertini
I
,
Cacciatore
S
,
Jensen
BV
,
Schou
JV
,
Johansen
JS
,
Kruhoffer
M
, et al
Metabolomic NMR fingerprinting to identify and predict survival of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer
.
Cancer Res
2012
;
72
:
356
64
.
71.
Farshidfar
F
,
Weljie
AM
,
Kopciuk
K
,
Buie
WD
,
MacLean
A
,
Dixon
E
, et al
Serum metabolomic profile as a means to distinguish stage of colorectal cancer
.
Genome Med
2012
;
4
:
42
.
72.
Pavlou
M
,
Diamandis
EP
. 
The search for new prostate cancer biomarkers continues
.
Clin Chem
2009
;
55
:
1277
9
.
73.
Sreekumar
A
,
Poisson
LM
,
Rajendiran
TM
,
Khan
AP
,
Cao
Q
,
Yu
J
, et al
Metabolomic profiles delineate potential role for sarcosine in prostate cancer progression
.
Nature
2009
;
457
:
910
4
.
74.
Struys
EA
,
Heijboer
AC
,
van Moorselaar
J
,
Jakobs
C
,
Blankenstein
MA
. 
Serum sarcosine is not a marker for prostate cancer
.
Ann Clin Biochem
2010
;
47
:
282
.
75.
Committee ASoP.
Evans
JA
,
Early
DS
,
Chandraskhara
V
,
Chathadi
KV
,
Fanelli
RD
, et al
The role of endoscopy in the assessment and treatment of esophageal cancer
.
Gastrointest Endosc
2013
;
77
:
328
34
.
76.
Committee ASoP.
Fisher
DA
,
Shergill
AK
,
Early
DS
,
Acosta
RD
,
Chandrasekhara
V
, et al
Role of endoscopy in the staging and management of colorectal cancer
.
Gastrointest Endosc
2013
;
78
:
8
12
.
77.
Kadri
SR
,
Lao-Sirieix
P
,
O'Donovan
M
,
Debiram
I
,
Das
M
,
Blazeby
JM
, et al
Acceptability and accuracy of a non-endoscopic screening test for Barrett's oesophagus in primary care: cohort study
.
BMJ
2010
;
341
:
c4372
.