Circulating Endothelial Cells as Promising Biomarkers in the Differential Diagnosis of Primary Angiitis of the Central Nervous System

Standard

Circulating Endothelial Cells as Promising Biomarkers in the Differential Diagnosis of Primary Angiitis of the Central Nervous System. / Deb-Chatterji, Milani; Pinnschmidt, Hans Otto; Duan, Yinghui; Haeussler, Vivien; Rissiek, Björn; Gerloff, Christian; Thomalla, Götz; Magnus, Tim.

in: FRONT NEUROL, Jahrgang 11, 2020, S. 205.

Publikationen: SCORING: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift/ZeitungSCORING: ZeitschriftenaufsatzForschungBegutachtung

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Bibtex

@article{84c7856bab6b460e9e6239b4e0cf6168,
title = "Circulating Endothelial Cells as Promising Biomarkers in the Differential Diagnosis of Primary Angiitis of the Central Nervous System",
abstract = "Background: Diagnosis of primary angiitis of the central nervous system (PACNS) and discrimination of PACNS from its mimics, e. g., reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS) or moyamoya disease (MMD) as non-inflammatory vasculopathies, still remain challenging. Circulating endothelial cells (CEC) are well-established markers for endothelial damage and potential biomarkers in PACNS. This study aimed to investigate if CECs may also help to distinguish an active PACNS from its important differentials (RCVS, MMD). Methods: CECs were assessed in 47 subjects. Twenty-seven patients with PACNS were included, seven with an active disease (aPACNS), 20 in remission (rPACNS). Seven patients with RCVS/MMD were analyzed. Thirteen healthy subjects served as controls (HC). CECs were measured by immunomagnetic isolation from peripheral venous blood. Mann-Whitney-U-Tests were applied for between-group comparisons. The Benjamini-Hochberg-procedure was applied to adjust for multiple comparisons. Results: In aPACNS, CECs were significantly elevated compared to HC (480 vs. 40 CEC/ml, p < 0.001) and rPACNS (54 CEC/ml, p < 0.001). RCVS/MMD patients showed higher CEC levels (288 CEC/ml) than HC (p < 0.001), but lower than those in aPACNS (p = 0.017). An adjustment for multiple comparisons confirmed prior significant differences. An increased CEC value (cut-off 294 CEC/ml) is indicative for an active PACNS [sensitivity 100%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 63-100%; specificity 93%, CI 81-98%]. Conclusions: CECs may serve as biomarkers for diagnosis, treatment monitoring, and also for differential diagnosis of PACNS. CECs seem to be a marker of endothelial injury with higher levels in inflammatory than non-inflammatory vasculopathies. Larger patient samples are required to corroborate these findings.",
author = "Milani Deb-Chatterji and Pinnschmidt, {Hans Otto} and Yinghui Duan and Vivien Haeussler and Bj{\"o}rn Rissiek and Christian Gerloff and G{\"o}tz Thomalla and Tim Magnus",
note = "Copyright {\textcopyright} 2020 Deb-Chatterji, Pinnschmidt, Duan, Haeussler, Rissiek, Gerloff, Thomalla and Magnus.",
year = "2020",
doi = "10.3389/fneur.2020.00205",
language = "English",
volume = "11",
pages = "205",
journal = "FRONT NEUROL",
issn = "1664-2295",
publisher = "Frontiers Research Foundation",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Circulating Endothelial Cells as Promising Biomarkers in the Differential Diagnosis of Primary Angiitis of the Central Nervous System

AU - Deb-Chatterji, Milani

AU - Pinnschmidt, Hans Otto

AU - Duan, Yinghui

AU - Haeussler, Vivien

AU - Rissiek, Björn

AU - Gerloff, Christian

AU - Thomalla, Götz

AU - Magnus, Tim

N1 - Copyright © 2020 Deb-Chatterji, Pinnschmidt, Duan, Haeussler, Rissiek, Gerloff, Thomalla and Magnus.

PY - 2020

Y1 - 2020

N2 - Background: Diagnosis of primary angiitis of the central nervous system (PACNS) and discrimination of PACNS from its mimics, e. g., reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS) or moyamoya disease (MMD) as non-inflammatory vasculopathies, still remain challenging. Circulating endothelial cells (CEC) are well-established markers for endothelial damage and potential biomarkers in PACNS. This study aimed to investigate if CECs may also help to distinguish an active PACNS from its important differentials (RCVS, MMD). Methods: CECs were assessed in 47 subjects. Twenty-seven patients with PACNS were included, seven with an active disease (aPACNS), 20 in remission (rPACNS). Seven patients with RCVS/MMD were analyzed. Thirteen healthy subjects served as controls (HC). CECs were measured by immunomagnetic isolation from peripheral venous blood. Mann-Whitney-U-Tests were applied for between-group comparisons. The Benjamini-Hochberg-procedure was applied to adjust for multiple comparisons. Results: In aPACNS, CECs were significantly elevated compared to HC (480 vs. 40 CEC/ml, p < 0.001) and rPACNS (54 CEC/ml, p < 0.001). RCVS/MMD patients showed higher CEC levels (288 CEC/ml) than HC (p < 0.001), but lower than those in aPACNS (p = 0.017). An adjustment for multiple comparisons confirmed prior significant differences. An increased CEC value (cut-off 294 CEC/ml) is indicative for an active PACNS [sensitivity 100%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 63-100%; specificity 93%, CI 81-98%]. Conclusions: CECs may serve as biomarkers for diagnosis, treatment monitoring, and also for differential diagnosis of PACNS. CECs seem to be a marker of endothelial injury with higher levels in inflammatory than non-inflammatory vasculopathies. Larger patient samples are required to corroborate these findings.

AB - Background: Diagnosis of primary angiitis of the central nervous system (PACNS) and discrimination of PACNS from its mimics, e. g., reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS) or moyamoya disease (MMD) as non-inflammatory vasculopathies, still remain challenging. Circulating endothelial cells (CEC) are well-established markers for endothelial damage and potential biomarkers in PACNS. This study aimed to investigate if CECs may also help to distinguish an active PACNS from its important differentials (RCVS, MMD). Methods: CECs were assessed in 47 subjects. Twenty-seven patients with PACNS were included, seven with an active disease (aPACNS), 20 in remission (rPACNS). Seven patients with RCVS/MMD were analyzed. Thirteen healthy subjects served as controls (HC). CECs were measured by immunomagnetic isolation from peripheral venous blood. Mann-Whitney-U-Tests were applied for between-group comparisons. The Benjamini-Hochberg-procedure was applied to adjust for multiple comparisons. Results: In aPACNS, CECs were significantly elevated compared to HC (480 vs. 40 CEC/ml, p < 0.001) and rPACNS (54 CEC/ml, p < 0.001). RCVS/MMD patients showed higher CEC levels (288 CEC/ml) than HC (p < 0.001), but lower than those in aPACNS (p = 0.017). An adjustment for multiple comparisons confirmed prior significant differences. An increased CEC value (cut-off 294 CEC/ml) is indicative for an active PACNS [sensitivity 100%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 63-100%; specificity 93%, CI 81-98%]. Conclusions: CECs may serve as biomarkers for diagnosis, treatment monitoring, and also for differential diagnosis of PACNS. CECs seem to be a marker of endothelial injury with higher levels in inflammatory than non-inflammatory vasculopathies. Larger patient samples are required to corroborate these findings.

U2 - 10.3389/fneur.2020.00205

DO - 10.3389/fneur.2020.00205

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 32296382

VL - 11

SP - 205

JO - FRONT NEUROL

JF - FRONT NEUROL

SN - 1664-2295

ER -