Daily Cosmetic Research Analysis
Today's most impactful studies span diagnostics, implant-related pathophysiology, and patient-reported outcomes in aesthetic surgery. A multi-omics study identifies plasma POSTN as a cholangiocarcinoma biomarker that complements CA19.9, an intrasubject multi-omics analysis clarifies dysbiosis/inflammation around craniofacial implants, and a comparative cohort shows autologous fat grafting achieves similar satisfaction to implants with better physical well-being.
Summary
Today's most impactful studies span diagnostics, implant-related pathophysiology, and patient-reported outcomes in aesthetic surgery. A multi-omics study identifies plasma POSTN as a cholangiocarcinoma biomarker that complements CA19.9, an intrasubject multi-omics analysis clarifies dysbiosis/inflammation around craniofacial implants, and a comparative cohort shows autologous fat grafting achieves similar satisfaction to implants with better physical well-being.
Research Themes
- Biomarker discovery and validation for cancer diagnosis
- Host–microbiome interactions around transcutaneous craniofacial implants
- Patient-reported outcomes comparing breast implants vs autologous fat grafting
Selected Articles
1. Plasma POSTN Derived From Bile Proteome Is a Promising Biomarker for Cholangiocarcinoma With Efficacy Comparable and Complementary to CA19.9.
Using bile proteomics intersected with transcriptomics, POSTN was identified and validated as a plasma biomarker for cholangiocarcinoma. In a 146-patient validation cohort, plasma POSTN achieved AUC 0.86 and, when combined with CA19.9, improved to AUC 0.94; higher POSTN associated with EMT signatures and poorer survival.
Impact: Robust multi-omics discovery with independent validation shows POSTN can complement CA19.9, potentially improving early cholangiocarcinoma diagnosis and risk stratification.
Clinical Implications: Plasma POSTN could be incorporated with CA19.9 to enhance diagnostic accuracy for cholangiocarcinoma and may aid prognostic stratification, informing imaging and therapeutic decisions.
Key Findings
- POSTN was identified by intersecting bile proteomics (57 upregulated proteins) with GEO transcriptomics (48 upregulated genes).
- Bile and plasma POSTN were elevated 4.7-fold and 2.1-fold, respectively, in cholangiocarcinoma versus controls.
- Validation cohort: plasma POSTN sensitivity 78%, specificity 85%, AUC 0.86; combination with CA19.9 improved to sensitivity 87%, specificity 91%, AUC 0.94.
- High plasma POSTN associated with EMT transcriptional regulators and worse overall survival; interactome linked to ECM structural proteins.
Methodological Strengths
- Multi-omics discovery (LC-MS/MS proteomics plus transcriptomics) with verification and independent validation cohorts
- Use of targeted quantification (MRM, ELISA) and diagnostic performance metrics (AUC, sensitivity, specificity)
Limitations
- Control group limited to gallstone patients; generalizability to other cholestatic conditions is uncertain
- Predominantly cross-sectional design without external multicenter validation; residual confounding possible
Future Directions: Prospective multicenter diagnostic studies across diverse cholestatic controls, evaluation for early-stage disease, and integration into clinical decision algorithms with cost-effectiveness analyses.
BACKGROUND: Cholangiocarcinoma presents a global health challenge due to its increasing incidence and poor prognosis, primarily resulting from delayed diagnosis. There is an urgent need for a reliable biomarker to enhance early detection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with cholangiocarcinoma were enrolled into three cohorts: a discovery set (n = 6), a verification set (n = 34), and a validation set (n = 146), for seeking potential biomarkers, while patients with gallstones served as controls. Three cholangiocarcinoma transcriptome datasets from the gene expression omnibus (GEO) were analyzed. Techniques employed included liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS), multiple reaction monitoring, and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. RESULTS: Using a discovery set, bile proteome profiling identified 57 upregulated proteins that were either unique to cholangiocarcinoma or exhibited ≥ 2-fold changes compared to controls. The GEO transcriptome datasets yielded 48 upregulated genes consistently expressed in cholangiocarcinoma. POSTN (periostin) emerged as a viable biomarker by intersecting these two omics analyses. In the verification set, bile and plasma POSTN levels in cholangiocarcinoma were 4.7-fold and 2.1-fold higher, respectively, compared to controls. In the validation set, the sensitivity, specificity, and AUC of plasma POSTN for diagnosing cholangiocarcinoma were 78%, 85%, and 0.86, respectively, compared to 67%, 90%, and 0.86 for CA19.9. The combination of plasma POSTN and CA19.9 improved these metrics to 87%, 91%, and 0.94, respectively. Protein interactome analysis demonstrated that POSTN was predominantly connected to structural proteins of extracellular matrix (ECM). Patients with higher plasma POSTN levels exhibited higher expression of transcriptional regulators of epithelia-mesenchymal transition (EMT) and worse overall survival compared with those with lower levels. CONCLUSIONS: Plasma POSTN, derived from the bile proteome, demonstrates both comparable and complementary efficacy to CA19.9, emerging as a promising biomarker for diagnosing cholangiocarcinoma. Beyond its diagnostic capability, POSTN's role in extracellular matrix interactions and EMT regulation highlights its prognostic potential.
2. Microbiome and Metaproteome of Craniofacial Implant Regions in Health and Disease.
In an intrasubject control design, diseased transcutaneous regions of craniofacial implants showed enrichment of Streptococcus intermedius, Corynebacterium diphtheriae, and Prevotella bivia, alongside a proinflammatory proteomic signature. Findings implicate dysbiosis and an imbalanced host response in compromised osseointegration and device longevity.
Impact: Combining microbiome and metaproteome in paired healthy/diseased sites provides mechanistic insight with direct implications for maintaining transcutaneous implant health and cosmetic rehabilitation outcomes.
Clinical Implications: Supports surveillance and targeted interventions (e.g., antimicrobial stewardship, biofilm control, host-modulating strategies) to preserve peri-implant tissue health and prosthesis retention.
Key Findings
- Diseased transcutaneous regions had higher abundance of Streptococcus intermedius, Corynebacterium diphtheriae, and Prevotella bivia.
- Metaproteomics revealed increased proinflammatory activation and decreased anti-inflammatory responses in diseased sites.
- Intrasubject paired sampling of biofilm and peri-implant fluid enabled direct comparison of healthy vs diseased implant regions.
Methodological Strengths
- Intrasubject control design minimizing inter-individual variability
- Integration of 16S rRNA microbiome profiling with LC-MS/MS metaproteomics
Limitations
- Small sample size (n=12) limits generalizability and statistical power
- Cross-sectional design precludes causal inference and lacks longitudinal outcomes
Future Directions: Larger, longitudinal cohorts to model temporal dynamics, interventional studies targeting key taxa or host pathways, and development of noninvasive monitoring biomarkers.
BACKGROUND: Craniofacial defects from cancer surgery led to functional, aesthetic, and psychological challenges. Rehabilitation with craniofacial implants addresses these issues by improving prosthesis retention through osseointegration and providing predictable cosmetic results. However, maintaining a healthy transcutaneous region is essential for implant longevity. OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of the microbial community and host response around extraoral implants. METHODS: In an intrasubject control study design, 12 cancer patients who had undergone oculofacial rehabilitation with implant-supported prostheses were included. Biofilm and peri-implant fluid samples were collected from the transcutaneous region of healthy and diseased implants. Microbiome profiling was conducted through DNA sequencing of the V3-V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene, and proteome analysis was performed using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. RESULTS: Differentially abundant species were observed, with Streptococcus intermedius being the most abundant in diseased areas, followed by Corynebacterium diphtheriae and Prevotella bivia. Metaproteomic analysis revealed distinct protein expression patterns between the groups, with increased activation of proinflammatory responses and inactivation of anti-inflammatory responses in the diseased group. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated an increased abundance of pathogenic bacterial community accompanied by an imbalanced immune response, thereby highlighting host-microbial factors that can influence the success of osseointegration and facial rehabilitation.
3. Comparative Study Between Breast Implants and Adipose Tissue Autograft in Primary Aesthetic Breast Augmentation.
In 119 primary aesthetic augmentations, autologous fat grafting delivered comparable BREAST-Q satisfaction to implants, with superior physical well-being and no major complications observed in the fat group. Findings support lipofilling as a viable option for moderate augmentation or for patients avoiding foreign materials.
Impact: Provides comparative patient-reported outcomes and complication profiles that can directly inform shared decision-making between implants and lipofilling.
Clinical Implications: Counseling can emphasize similar satisfaction but better physical well-being with fat grafting; lipofilling is suitable for moderate augmentation in patients with adequate donor fat and those preferring to avoid implants.
Key Findings
- BREAST-Q breast satisfaction scores were similar between implants and lipofilling (71/100 vs 69/100).
- Physical well-being was higher after lipofilling (96/100) compared with implants (87/100).
- Major complications occurred in 3.4% of implant patients and 0% in the lipofilling group.
Methodological Strengths
- Use of validated BREAST-Q instrument for patient-reported outcomes
- Comparative analysis across a multi-year cohort (2017–2022)
Limitations
- Retrospective design with unequal group sizes (87 vs 32) and potential selection bias
- Minimum 6-month follow-up may not capture long-term outcomes or late complications
Future Directions: Prospective randomized or propensity-matched studies with standardized techniques, longer follow-up, and cost-utility analyses to refine patient selection.
BACKGROUND: Breast augmentation is the most common cosmetic surgery worldwide. Despite recent approval for aesthetic use, adipose tissue autografting remains underutilized compared to breast implants, the standard for hypoplasia correction. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to compare patient satisfaction and quality of life following breast augmentation with implants or lipofilling, using the BREAST-Q questionnaire. METHODS: From July 2017 to 2022, patients from our Plastic, Reconstructive, and Aesthetic Surgery Department who underwent breast augmentation with implants or lipofillin were included. The primary endpoint was patient satisfaction and quality of life, assessed using the BREAST-Q questionnaire at least six months postoperatively. RESULTS: Among 119 patients (87 implants, 32 lipofilling), BREAST-Q scores showed no significant difference in breast satisfaction (71/100 vs. 69/100). Psychosocial and sexual well-being scores were similar between groups, while physical well-being was higher in the lipofilling group (96/100 vs. 87/100). Major complications occurred in 3.4% of the implant group, whereas none were observed in the lipofilling group. CONCLUSION: Adipose tissue autografting is an effective technique, providing comparable patient satisfaction to breast implants while offering better physical well-being. It is a viable alternative to implants, particularly for patients seeking moderate breast augmentation or avoiding foreign materials, provided they have sufficient fat reserves. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .