Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Jul 21;16(7):e0253613. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253613

Increased activity of procoagulant factors in patients with small cell lung cancer

Shona Pedersen 1,2,*,#, Anne Flou Kristensen 1,2,#, Ursula Falkmer 2,3, Gunna Christiansen 4,5, Søren Risom Kristensen 1,2
Editor: Christophe Leroyer6
PMCID: PMC8294523  PMID: 34288927

Abstract

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients have augmented risk of developing venous thromboembolism, but the mechanisms triggering this burden on the coagulation system remain to be understood. Recently, cell-derived microparticles carrying procoagulant phospholipids (PPL) and tissue factor (TF) in their membrane have attracted attention as possible contributors to the thrombogenic processes in cancers. The aims of this study were to assess the coagulation activity of platelet-poor plasma from 38 SCLC patients and to provide a detailed procoagulant profiling of small and large extracellular vesicles (EVs) isolated from these patients at the time of diagnosis, during and after treatment compared to 20 healthy controls. Hypercoagulability testing was performed by thrombin generation (TG), procoagulant phospholipid (PPL), TF activity, Protein C, FVIII activity and cell-free deoxyribonucleic acid (cfDNA), a surrogate measure for neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs). Our results revealed a coagulation activity that is significantly increased in the plasma of SCLC patients when compared to age-related healthy controls, but no substantial changes in coagulation activity during treatment and at follow-up. Although EVs in the patients revealed an increased PPL and TF activity compared with the controls, the TG profiles of EVs added to a standard plasma were similar for patients and controls. Finally, we found no differences in the coagulation profile of patients who developed VTE to those who did not, i.e. the tests could not predict VTE. In conclusion, we found that SCLC patients display an overall increased coagulation activity at time of diagnosis and during the disease, which may contribute to their higher risk of VTE.

Introduction

The risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is increased in cancer patients but the underlying mechanisms are not well-known. The risk differs in different types of cancer malignancies, and those in the lung, brain, pancreas and gastrointestinal tract are considered to be associated with the highest incidence of VTE [14]. Among patients with lung cancer, the incidence rate has been reported to be approx. 50 pr. 1000 person years [5], and patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) have been found to have an incidence rate of 31.7 pr. 1000 person years [6]. Chemotherapy and especially platinum-based regimens, which is the preferred treatment strategy for patients with SCLC, may further increase the risk of thrombotic events [4].

The coagulation system consists of a complex interplay of many factors, and several procoagulant factors may be involved in this process [7]. Tissue factor (TF), the main initiator of coagulation, has been found to be increased in plasma of some cancer patients compared to healthy controls [810]. TF is an integral membrane bound protein which has been proposed to be expressed by cancer cells where it is related to the metastatic potential of these cells but may also participate in the cancer-associated hypercoagulability [11]. TF may be present in plasma, carried in the membranes of extracellular vesicles (EV) possibly released from the cancer cells, and this EV-associated TF activity may play a major role in cancer-related thrombogenicity [7, 1214]. EV-associated TF activity in cancer patients has also been correlated to cancer prognosis [8, 15, 16]. In addition, procoagulant phospholipids (PPL), i.e. anionic phospholipids, mainly phosphatidylserine, and a high level of coagulation factor VIII (FVIII), which is an acute-phase protein, have been associated with an increased risk of thrombosis [17, 18] also including cancer patients [7, 1922]. PPL is also present on the surface of EVs in plasma. Thus, an increased level of EVs containing TF and PPL may play a crucial role for the risk of VTEs in cancer patients [14, 2325].

Neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs), have been linked to the formation of VTEs, and may also play a role in cancer-associated thrombosis [2628]. During NETosis a network of chromatin is extruded through the membranes of activated neutrophils, which may trap and activate platelets and coagulation factors, and may thus initiate thrombosis [18, 29, 30]. Although there is no single marker to determine NETs in plasma, surrogate markers for NETs include plasma levels of cfDNA, citrullinated histone H3 and myeloperoxidase [18, 31]. In addition, cfDNA was described to carry a procoagulant activity on its own and therefore might give insight about NET-associated procoagulant activity in patient plasma samples [18, 32, 33]. Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are diverse membranous vesicles that are actively released by many types of cells including tumor cells and, have been associated with several pro-tumoral processes [30, 3436]. Two main types of EVs have been identified in the biological fluids of cancer patients: exosomes (small EVs) and microvesicles (MVs-large EVs) [37]. Exosomes, i.e. small EVs, produced by cancer cells have been shown to stimulate NETosis in a mouse model [30]. Protein C is an important anticoagulant factor inactivating the activated FV and FVIII (FVa and FVIIIa, respectively). A low protein C activity was associated with increased mortality in different malignancies, e.g. in non-metastasizing lung cancer patients [38] and low levels of protein C has been found to be linked to cancer-related VTE [21].

The aim of the present study was to investigate the coagulation profile of SCLC patients at the time of diagnosis, during and after treatment. Coagulation activity was assessed by thrombin generation (TG), procoagulant phospholipid (PPL) and TF activity, Protein C, FVIII activity and cfDNA. Furthermore, we investigated the effect on coagulation of plasma-derived EVs isolated from SCLC patients compared to that of healthy controls. We hypothesize that these patients have an overall increased coagulation activity and that this may be, at least partially, mediated by the presence of procoagulant EVs.

Materials and methods

Study design and patient demographics

Thirty-eight patients newly diagnosed with SCLC were enrolled in this study after obtaining informed consent. The study was conducted in agreement with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Regional ethics committee for Northern Jutland (N-20140055). Inclusion criteria for enrolment were: age over 18 years, patients should be eligible to receive treatment with chemotherapy consisting of platinum and a topoisomerase inhibitor, platelet count >100 x109/L and normal levels of INR and APTT. In all cases, histological and/or cytological confirmation SCLC was required. Exclusion criteria were: prior systemic chemotherapy for lung cancer, concomitant anticoagulation treatment (platelet inhibitors, ASA and clopidogrel were allowed), active or at high risk of overt bleeding of clinical importance, severe coagulopathy such as haemophilia, severe liver dysfunction with impaired coagulation, acute peptic ulcer, occurrence of intracranial haemorrhage 3 months prior to start of the study, or surgery in the central nervous system. Pregnancy and/or breast-feeding and women who did not use oral contraceptives were excluded. Treatment with any other investigational agents, or participation in other clinical trials also lead to exclusion. Patients were staged according to limited disease (LD) or extensive disease (ED), equivalent to disease limited to one hemithorax and disease beyond the ipsilateral hemithorax, respectively [39]. The study group had access to patient files including routine laboratory results and medical history. In addition, a total of 20 healthy age-related controls with a mean age of 63 years (range 56–67, 11 male and 9 female) were included in the study at the Blood Donor Center at Aalborg University Hospital. In Denmark blood donors are healthy volunteers without any apparent illness and without biochemical abnormalities.

Blood sample collection

Patients donated 3 blood samples: one at baseline prior to initiation of treatment cycle 1 (denoted baseline); one prior to initiation of treatment cycle 3 (denoted “during treatment”); and the last one at a follow-up visit scheduled 3 weeks or 2 months after completion of the sixth cycle (denoted follow-up). Blood samples were drawn in the antecubital vein using a vacutainer blood collection device with a 21-gauge butterfly needle. Blood was collected in 6 ml 3.2% (109 mM) sodium citrate tubes (Vacuette® Greiner Bio-One, Austria) and the first few millilitres, i.e. the first collection tube, were discarded. Samples were centrifuged twice at 2500 x g for 15 min to obtain a platelet-poor plasma (PPP). After the first centrifugation plasma was collected to 1 cm above the buffy coat, and after the second centrifugation the last 0.5 ml was left in the tube. Aliquots of 1 ml of PPP were immediately frozen and stored at -80 ᵒC until further analysis. Standard plasma (SP) for EV analyses was obtained from one healthy donor with centrifugation performed as described above.

Isolation of extracellular vesicles

Extracellular vesicles (EVs) were isolated from patient 1–30 and all healthy controls using differential ultracentrifugation in the following manner: 1 ml PPP was centrifuged at 20,000 x g for 30 min. (pellet denoted 20K pel), and the supernatant was then re-centrifuged at 100,000 x g for 1 h (pellet denoted 100K pel). Both pellet types were subjected to a washing step in 1 mL Dulbecco’s Phosphate-Buffered Saline (DPBS), and subsequently centrifuged as the initial centrifugation. Pellets were either resuspended in 200 μl SPP or DPBS, or in 180 μl HBSA buffer (137 mM NaCl, 5.38 mM KCl, 5.55 mM D-glucose, 10 mM HEPES, 0.1% bovine serum albumin; pH 7.4) dependent on analyses.

Thrombin generation analysis

TG determinations on each plasma sample as well as SP containing isolated EVs from both patients and healthy controls were determined using the CAT assay developed by Hemker et al [40]. In short, 80 μL plasma was dispersed into a well containing either 20 μL trigger or calibrator solution, incubated 10 minutes at 37°C, and subsequently coagulation was initiated by the addition of 20 μl FluCa buffer containing a fluorescence substrate and CaCl2 (all reagents from Thrombinoscope BV, Netherlands). For the analysis of plasma, a commercially available trigger denoted PPPlow, containing 1 pM TF and 4 μM phospholipids (Thrombinoscope BV, Netherlands) was used. Analysis of EVs was performed using the trigger reagent PRP, containing 1 pM TF only (Thrombinoscope BV, Netherlands). Fluorescence intensity was recorded for a total of 50 minutes with a 390/460 nm excitation/emission filter set and thrombograms were generated using Thrombinoscope software version 5.0 (Thrombinoscope BV, Netherlands). TG parameters were assessed in the statistical analysis i.e. lag time, Endogenous Thrombin Potential (ETP), peak height (peak), and time to peak (ttPeak).

STA Procoag-PPL assay

To determine the activity of PPL both in plasma samples and in SPP containing isolated vesicles, the commercially available STA Procoag-PPL test (Diagnostica Stago, Asnieres, France) was applied. To determine the activity of procoagulant phospholipids (i.e. Procoag-PPL), an activated factor X (FX)-based clotting method is used. The assay is initiated by the addition of 25 μL PPP to a cuvette containing 25 μL human phospholipid depleted plasma. The sample was then incubated for 2 min. at 37°C, prior to the addition of pre-warmed XACT reagent containing FXa and Ca2+ (Diagnostica Stago, Asnieres, France). Clotting time is determined by the motion of a spherical steal ball; a short clotting time indicates a high activity of procoagulant phospholipids.

Activity of extracellular vesicle-associated tissue factor

The activity of EV-associated TF in both pellet types i.e. 20K pel and 100K pel, was determined using a method described by Hisada and Mackman [41]. The analysis was as follows: Anti-human HTF-1 antibody (4μg/ml, BD Pharmingen, CA, USA) or mouse control IgG antibody (4μg/ml, BD Pharmingen, CA, USA) was added to 40 μl isolated EVs resuspended in HBSA buffer in a 96 well plate and incubated at room temperature for approx. 15 min. After incubation, 50 μL HBSA containing CaCl2 (10 mM) and coagulation factors VIIa (10 nM) and X (300 nM) were added to each well. A standard curve of a recombinant human TF (0.63–30 pg/ml Innovin, Siemens, Germany) was applied to the plate, which was incubated for 2 hours at 37°C. FXa generation was terminated by 25 μL HBSA containing EDTA (25 nM), and 25 μL of Pefachrome FXa (FXa8595, Pentapharm, Switzerland) substrate was added to all wells. The plate was then incubated for 15 min at 37°C and absorbance was measured at 405 nm using a FLUOstar Optima microplate reader (BMG labtech, Germany). The EV-associated TF-dependent FXa generation was calculated by subtracting the FXa generation in the HTF-1 wells from the FXa generation in the control IgG wells. According to Hisada et al [9] an EV-related TF activity of <1.0 pg/ml is considered to be weak, while >1.0 pg/ml represents a moderate to strong activity.

Plasma cell free DNA

Formation of NETs was determined using plasma cfDNA as a surrogate marker. Plasma was diluted 10-fold and allocated into a 96 well plate, where 100 μl of either Sytox Green (1: 1250, Invitrogen, CA, USA), a fluorescent DNA dye, or DPBS was applied to the plasma samples. Samples where only DPBS was added, were blanks to correct for fluorogenic background noise originating from the samples. Calf thymus DNA (0.0–125 ng/ml, Invitrogen, CA, USA) was used as a standard curve to determine the concentration of DNA in each sample. After five minutes of incubation at 27°C, fluorescence intensity was measured using a 485/520 nm excitation/emission filter set in a FLUOstar Optima microplate reader (BMG Lagtech, Germany).

Protein C and coagulation factor VIII activity

Protein C and FVIIIa were measured on an ACL TOP 500 CTS coagulation analyzer (Instrumentation Laboratory, Ma, USA) with dedicated reagents (Instrumentation Laboratory, Germany) using Protein C deficient plasma or FVIII deficient plasma, respectively.

Determination of vesicles in the isolates

Determination and confirmation of EVs was performed in accordance with guidelines recommended by International Society of Extracellular Vesicles (ISEV) [42, 43]. To characterize EVs, Nanoparticle Tracking Analysis was applied to determine the size distribution and vesicle concentration in the suspension, western blotting analysis was used to validate the isolated vesicles for the common EV marker CD9, and transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and immunoelectron microscopy (IEM) were applied for the structural characterization of the isolated EVs with immune-gold labelling against CD9.

Nanoparticle tracking analysis

A LM10-HS Nanoparticle Tracking Analysis system (Malvern Instruments Ltd, UK) equipped with a 405 nm laser and a Luca-DL EMCCD camera (Andor Technology, UK) was used to determine the concentration and size of particles in the pellets. Samples were diluted in PBS to obtain an average of 17–80 particles per frame and a total of 5×30 sec videos were captured for each sample. For sample analysis camera level 11, detection threshold 2, and blur 9×9 were employed. Analysis was performed using Nanoparticle Tracking Analysis software version 3.0 (Malvern Instruments Ltd, UK). Standard 0.1 μm silica beads (Polysciences, Germany) were used to validate settings.

Western blotting

Western blotting was performed on a pool of isolated vesicles from controls or patients i.e. for each sample 12 μl pooled vesicles resuspended in PBS was used. Proteins were separated in MiniProtean TGX 4–15% gels (Bio-Rad, Denmark) using Laemmli sample buffer (1:1.6, Bio-Rad, Denmark) for 50 min. at 150 Volt under non-reducing conditions. Proteins were transferred to an Amersham Hybond 0.45 PVDF Blotting membrane (GE Healthcare, Denmark) for 60 minutes at 100 Volt and blocked in a 5% (w/v) skim milk Tris-Glycine buffer. Primary antibody was mouse monoclonal anti-human CD9 (clone M-L13, BD Pharmingen, CA, USA), which was diluted 1:1000 in 5% skim milk Tris-Glycine buffer and incubated overnight at 4 ᵒC with the membrane. Secondary labelling was performed with a horseradish peroxidase-conjugated anti-mouse antibody (1:30000, Dako, Glostrup, Denmark) for 2 hours at room temperature. ECL Lumi-Light Western Blotting substrate detection reagent (Roche, Schweiz) was used for development and detection was performed on a PXi 4 system (Syngene, UK) with the GeneSys software 1.5.4.0 (Syngene, UK). To determine a relative change in band intensity between samples ImageJ 1.50r software (NIH, Bethesda, USA) was used.

Transmission electron microscopy and Immunoelectron microscopy of extracellular vesicles

EVs were phenotypically and structurally characterized by Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) with immuno-gold labelling against CD9, as previously described by Nielsen et al [44]. Briefly, 5 μl of EV isolate was mounted on a grid (SPI Supplies, PA, USA) and stained with one drop of 1% (w/v) phosphotungstic acid (pH 7.0, Ted Pella, Caspilor AB, Sweden), and subsequently blotted dry on filter paper. To visualize the presence of EV-specific marker CD9 on the surface of vesicles, IEM was performed on the isolated vesicles. The pelleted vesicles were positioned on a grid as described above and then blocked in ovalbumin. Subsequently, the grid was incubated with primary anti-CD9 antibody (1:50, BD Pharmingen, CA, USA), followed by incubation with secondary goat anti-mouse antibody conjugated with 10 nm colloidal gold (1:25, British BioCell, UK). The grids were stained with 1% (w/v) phosphotungstic acid at pH 7.0 and blotted dry. Images were obtained with a transmission electron microscopy (JEM 1010, Germany) operated at 60 keV coupled to an electron-sensitive CCD camera (KeenView, Olympus, PA, USA). Lastly, a grid-size replica (2,160 lines/mm) was imported to ImageJ 1.50i software, which enables a correct determination of the size of EVs.

Statistics

All data was tested for normality using Shapiro-Wilk normality test prior to statistical analysis. If data assumed a normal distribution a parametric t-test was applied to test for statistical difference between two variables, while a repeated measures ANOVA was used to test for differences between repeated measures i.e. measurements performed over time. The non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis was used if data did not assume a normal distribution and multiple groups were to be compared, while Mann-Whitney U test was applied to non-parametric data if only two groups were to be compared i.e. measurements performed during the disease or measurements between two groups of patients. Correlations between markers was performed using Pearsons correlation test if data assumed a normal distribution, and if not, Spearman correlation was used. Correlation between ordinal and metric data was performed using Eta2 test i.e. the correlation between performance status and all other valuables, where a high degree of correlation was assigned to an Eta2 value above 0.10. For all other analyses, statistically significant difference was assigned to p <0.05. The Eta2 test was performed using IMB SPSS Statistics 23 (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA), and Graph Pad Prism 6 (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, CA, USA) was used for all other statistical analyses.

Results

Patient characteristics

A total of 38 newly diagnosed patients with small cell lung cancer were included, basic characteristics of the patients at inclusion are described in Table 1. From all 38 patients, a blood sample was collected at baseline; during treatment blood samples were collected from 33 patients (3 patients died and 2 withdrew their informed consent); and at the follow-up visit blood samples were collected from 28 patients (3 died, 1 did not wish to donate another sample and 1 relapsed before the follow-up visit). At baseline, all patients had haemoglobin and blood cell counts (leukocytes, and platelets) within normal reference ranges and all patients had normal sodium, potassium, calcium, creatinine, and albumin (S1 Table). One patient had signs of liver disease (increased levels of alanine amino transferase (ALAT), alkaline phosphatase, and lactate dehydrogenase). The patient group included 9 with LD and 29 with ED. In the group with ED four patients had no metastasis, (a large tumor burden evolving beyond the diaphragm places them in the ED group), however, in our study we did not separate patients according to metastases as it will not impact the result outcome. From the TNM (Tumor, lymph Node, and Metastasis) staging we found approximately 45% of the patients to be classified as stage IV [45]. Age- and sex-related healthy blood donors from the blood bank at Aalborg University Hospital were used for comparison.

Table 1. Characteristics of small cell lung cancer patients at diagnosis.

Characteristics SCLC cohort (N = 38) Healthy controls (N = 20)
Age at baseline–years
 Mean (SD)* 65 (8.5) 63 (2.8)
 Range 42–80 57–67
Gender–no. (%)
 Female 22 (58) 11 (55)
 Male 16 (42) 9 (45)
Performance status–no. (%)
 0–1 22 (58)
 2–3 16 (42)
Disease stage–no. (%)
 Limited disease 9 (24)
 Extended disease 29 (76)
T-stage–no. (%)
 T1 5 (13)
 T2 4 (10)
 T3 3 (8)
 T4 17 (45)
 TX 9 (24)
N-stage–no. (%)
 N0 3 (8)
 N1 3 (8)
 N2 3 (8)
 N3 19 (50)
 NX 10 (26)
M-stage–no. (%)
 M0 12 (32)
 M1 26 (68)
Chemotherapy cycles given–no. (%)
 < 4 cycles 3 (8)
 ≥ 4 cycles 35 (92)
Patients receiving radiotherapy–no. (%)
 Prophylactic cranial radiation 19 (50)
Days Baseline-Follow-Up
 Median 145
 Range 107–259

Two patients withdrew their informed consent during the study period. However, these patients consented to the inclusion of their data in the study.

*Mean and standard deviation.

TNM staging = Tumor, lymph Node, and Metastasis.

Coagulation activity of PPP from small cell lung cancer patients compared to healthy controls

Baseline coagulation data based on analyses of PPP from all SCLC patients and healthy controls are presented in Table 2. The patients had significantly elevated TG with a higher ETP and peak, even though lagtime was slightly longer in the patients. PPL clotting time was considerably shorter indicative of a higher PPL activity in the patients when compared to healthy controls. The concentration of cfDNA was significantly elevated among patients. Factor VIII and protein C activities in patients were increased by 45% and 19%, respectively, compared to controls. In the patients, plasma PPL activity assay correlated significantly with plasma TG parameters: Peak (rho = 0.27, P = 0.015) and ETP (rho = 0.40, P = 0.0003). FVIII activity correlated with peak (rho = 0.37, P = 0.001), whereas the activity of protein C correlated significantly with lag time (rho = 0.21, P = 0.05) and inversely with the activity of FVIII (tau = 0.26, P = 0.041).

Table 2. Comparison between healthy controls and SCLC patients at baseline.

Healthy controls (N = 20) All SCLC patient (N = 38)
Lag time (min) 7.1 ± 1.5 8.2 ± 1.8*
ETP (nM*min) 1060.3 ± 270.4 1727.2 ± 522.8****
Peak (nM) 118.7 ± 54.4 260.9 ± 113.6****
TF (pg/ml) 20K pel 0.05 ± 0.14 0.44 ± 0.85
PPL (sec) 61.5 ± 9.7 48.7 ± 10.7****
FVIIIa (U/ml) 0.84 ± 0.53 1.54 ± 0.60**
Protein C (U/ml) 1.21 ± 0.25 1.50 ± 0.34*
cfDNA (ng/ml) 226.5 ± 54.8 376.0 ± 144.0****
SCLC patients at baseline
LD (n = 9) ED (n = 29)
Lag time (min) 8.1 ± 1,7 8.2 ± 1.9
ETP (nM*min) 1809.2 ± 681.2 1700.8 ± 473.2
Peak (nM) 248.5 ± 130.2 255.5 ± 110.0
TF (pg/ml) 20K pel 0.13 ± 0.20 0.52 ± 0.93
PPL (sec) 46.3 ± 11.5 49.5 ± 10.5
FVIIIa (U/ml) 1.40 ± 0.56 1.58 ± 0.61
Protein C (U/ml) 1.61 ± 0.31 1.47 ± 0.35
cfDNA (ng/ml) 315.4 ± 118.4 398.8 ± 148.3*
SCLC patients during treatment
LD (n = 9) ED (n = 24)
Lag time (min) 8.0 ± 4.4 6.5 ± 1.3
ETP (nM*min) 1747.0 ± 854.6 1694.1 ± 479.5
Peak (nM) 236.1 ± 89.3 223.2 ± 69.7
TF (pg/ml) 20K pel 0.50 ± 1.01 0.94 ± 1.80
PPL (sec) 49.8 ± 13.2 46.75 ± 10.1
FVIIIa (U/ml) 1.72 ± 0.39 1.45 ± 0.44
Protein C (U/ml) 1.59 ± 0.41 1.49 ± 0.33
cfDNA (ng/ml) 281.8 ± 51.1 308.7 ± 93.8
SCLC patients at follow-up
LD (n = 7) ED (n = 21)
Lag time (min) 7.1 ± 2,9 6.8 ± 1.4
ETP (nM*min) 1473.2 ± 390.8 1676.6 ± 613.5
Peak (nM) 192.1 ± 58.7 217.3 ± 92.2
TF (pg/ml) 20K pel 0.91 ± 1.16 0.44 ± 0.66
PPL (sec) 54.5 ± 11.2 51.9 ± 15.2
FVIIIa (U/ml) 1.60 ± 0.36 1.42 ± 0.47
Protein C (U/ml) 1.69 ± 0.47 1.41 ± 0.37
cfDNA (ng/ml) 325.7 ± 119.7 274.9 ± 85.0

Moreover, patients were further divided into limited (LD) or extended (ED) disease and, followed during treatment and follow-up.

All data are shown as mean ± standard deviations (SD). Student t-test or Mann-Whitney U test, depending on the distribution type, was applied to compare the different parameters from the healthy control group to the LD and ED patients, respectively. Significant levels resemble statistical difference from the healthy control group.

* P<0.05;

**P<0.01;

*** P<0.001;

**** P<0.0001.

The influence of disease stage and performance status

Table 2 also summarizes data comparing patients with LD and ED, i.e. investigation of the effect of disease stage. There were no differences in TG or PPL activity assay, but patients with ED had a significantly higher concentration of cfDNA compared to patients with LD (P = 0.039) at baseline. A patient performance status of 2–3 corresponding to patients who were more ill, had a high correlation to an increased TG in plasma for all CAT parameters (Eta2 > 0.11) except ETP.

Coagulation activity in plasma during the disease

There were no substantial changes between the groups from baseline to the samples during treatment and to follow-up (Table 2). However, comparison of the differences of individual patients between baseline samples and “during treatment” and between baseline and follow-up samples, respectively, indicated a shorter lagtime in patients with ED and a trend towards a reduced TG and PPL activity in plasma among patients with LD during treatment and at follow-up (Table 3). TF activity in the 20K pel of the patients with SCLC was 9-fold increased when compared to the pellet extracted from healthy persons (borderline significant (p = 0.51), Table 2) at baseline, but TF was further increased during the disease, most pronounced among patients with LD (Table 3). FVIII activity also showed a propensity to increase in the LD group, while cfDNA tended to decrease in the ED group (Table 3).

Table 3. Percentage deviation from baseline in all the different measured values during treatment.

Limited disease Extended disease
Ba–Cyc (N = 9) Ba-FU (N = 7) Ba-Cyc (N = 24) Ba-FU (N = 19)
Δ Lag time (min) -2.6% ±43.1% -8.5% ±40.4% -20.4%*** ±18.7% -13.7% ± 28.0%
Δ ETP (nM*min) -10.7% ±20.9% -18.6% ±22.1% 5.8% ±39.1% 16.6% ±75.2%
Δ Peak (nM) -16.3% ±19.8% -22.4% ±39.6% 8.7% ±56.0% 22.6% ±128.7%
Δ PPL (sec) 15.2% ±52.6% 31.5% ±68.9% -4.4% ±21.0% 6.0% ±32.2%
Δ TF activity (pg/ml) 20K pel -0.34 ±1.09 -0.69 ±1.28 -0.38 ±2.25 -0.03 ±1.79
Δ FVIIIa (U/ml) 50.3% ±111.5% 58.1% ±123.0% 11.6% ±40.5% 25.7% ±58.7%
Δ Protein C (U/ml) 0.4% ±25.8% 8.7% ±21.7% 2.8% ±16.6% -7.9% ±22.4%
Δ cfDNA (pg/ml) -3.9% ±28.1% 9.1% ±38.8% -16.3% ±28.9% -32.5% ±20.9%

Patients are divided into limited disease and extended disease. Data is presented as the mean percentage deviation from baseline of all patients in each group ± standard deviation (SD) for all measurements except the tissue factor activity, which is denoted as a difference in activity from baseline to during treatment ± SD. Kruskal-Wallis or independent t-test was used to depict the significant changes of the different parameter levels from baseline, noted as

* P<0.05;

*** P<0.001.

Extracellular vesicles (EVs) isolated using differential centrifugation and their procoagulant effect

Western blot analysis and IEM showed CD9 positive vesicles in both pellet types (Fig 1A–1D). TEM showed the presence of round vesicle-like structures, some with a clear phospholipid bilayer indicating EVs. The original IEM and WB images are displayed in the S1A–S1C and S2 Figs, respectively).

Fig 1. EV confirmation and validation.

Fig 1

Immunoelectron microscopy (IEM) and Western blot analysis of extracellular vesicle marker CD9 performed on a pool of isolated vesicles from all donors. A) 20K pel CD9 positive vesicles. B) Both CD9 positive and negative vesicles isolated for the 100K pel. C) 100K pel CD9 positive vesicle. D) Western blot analysis against CD9 for the 20K and 100K EV pellets from healthy controls (HC) and small cell lung cancer patients (SCLC).

The effect of the pellets on the coagulation activity was investigated. SP in the absence of EVs, had a rather long lagtime and a small peak height, but the addition of the pellets to the SP resulted in shortened lagtime and increased peak height. There was a large variation of this effect between subjects but the mean TG of isolated EVs (30 out of 38 patients) did not differ much from the effect of EVs isolated from healthy age-related controls (Fig 2A), but a trend towards a higher activity of PPL in EVs isolated from patients was found, although not significant (p-value of 0.068 for the 20K pel and 0.059 for the 100K pel) (Fig 2B). EV associated TF activity in both pellet types were increased in patients; with the highest activity in the 100K pel (Fig 2C). Concurrently, in the control group for the 20K sample, none of the donors had a TF activity >1 pg/ml, whereas five percent (i.e. one donor), had a TF activity >1 pg/ml in the 100K sample. More patients had a TF activity >1 pg/ml: at baseline 10% and 33%, during treatment 16% and 32%, and at follow-up 25% and 35% in the 20K pel and 100K pel, respectively. Particle concentrations were higher in patients compared to controls (Fig 2D), and in 20K pel EVs were larger in the patients (Fig 2D). However, more small-sized particles were present in the 100K pel, and the fraction of small particles increased during the treatment (Fig 2D).

Fig 2. Procoagulant profiling of EVs isolated from healthy age-related controls and SCLC patients at baseline, during (prior to cycle 3) and after treatment (follow-up).

Fig 2

A) Thrombin generation curves from standard plasma (SP) and SP-containing vesicles isolated from patients and controls. B) EV-associated activity of procoagulant phospholipids (PPL) depicted as a clotting time. In both A) and B) SP represents the coagulation activity of the standard pooled plasma into which the isolated vesicles have been added. C) difference in tissue factor (TF) activity associated with EVs D) concentration and size distribution of isolated vesicles in both pellet types i.e. 20K pel and 100K pel.

Coagulation activity in plasma associated with extracellular vesicles

The activity of PPL in plasma correlated significantly with PPL activity in both pellet types: for 20K pel rho = 0.50 (p < 0.0001) and for 100K pel rho = 0.50 (p < 0.0001); PPL in plasma also correlated with TG of the 20K pel: rho = -0.41 for peak (p = <0.0001) and rho = 0.45 for lag time (p = 0.001). Moreover, we found a minor but significant correlation between TG measured in plasma and PPL activity in both pellet types: For 20K pel peak vs PPL rho = -0.26 (p = 0.05) and ETP vs PPL rho = -0.29 (p = 0.028); and for 100K pel peak vs PPL rho = -0.34 (p = 0.006) and ETP vs PPL rho: -0.27 (p = 0.03).

Thrombotic events

During the study period, a total of 4 patients (two males and two females) developed a venous thrombosis, all of them pulmonary emboli. Fig 3 shows the coagulation profile for each of these patients. One patient developed VTE before the sample drawn during treatment (patient 1), two patients after the blood sample during treatment (patients 2 and 3), and the fourth developed VTE after the last treatment cycle. Three of the four patients had ED and had metastases (patients 2, 3, and 4). At baseline, laboratory investigations and characteristics were comparable to the other patients. Patient 1 had a considerably increased FVIII and protein C during treatment and at follow-up, which was after the VTE event. Patient 2 had a marked increase of TG in plasma and a shorter PPL clotting time during treatment, i.e. before the patient developed VTE, and this persisted at follow-up. Unfortunately, TG in plasma from patient 4 could not be measured during treatment because the patient was anticoagulated.

Fig 3. Coagulation profile of SCLC patients who developed a VTE during the study period compared to all other patients.

Fig 3

Data is presented as mean ± SD where applicable. Patients 3 and 4 did not donate all blood samples and for P1, thrombin generation during treatment could not be assessed due to treatment with anticoagulants.

Discussion

The aim of the study was to investigate the coagulation activity in patients with SCLC at diagnosis and during antineoplastic treatment. The results show that coagulation activity is significantly increased in the patients compared to age-related healthy controls, but coagulation activity did not change substantially during treatment and at follow-up. Although EVs in the patients revealed an increased PPL and TF activity compared with the controls, the TG profiles of EVs added to a standard plasma were similar for patients and controls. Finally, we found no differences between patients who developed a VTE and the other SCLC patients, i.e. the tests could not predict VTE.

In this study, we used thrombin generation as a global test of the coagulation activity. Many factors in plasma contribute to the level: a high level of TF will tend to shorten lagtime; a high level of PPL will tend to increase ETP and Peak; high levels of other coagulation factors will also tend to increase ETP and peak whereas coagulation inhibitors may lower ETP and peak and perhaps increase lagtime. However, using PPPlow reagent containing both TF and PPL will attenuate the effect of these factors present in plasma. A high FVIII will tend to increase TG whereas a high Protein C will tend to reduce it, although the effect is limited in the absence of thrombomodulin. When EVs are isolated and added to SP it will mainly be TF and PPL in the EVs that have effect and using the trigger reagent PRP, which is devoid of PPL, will increase the sensitivity for PPL. We found that plasma from SCLC patients hold a hypercoagulable profile with increased TG and FVIII activity, and a significantly decreased PPL clotting time, indicating a high PPL activity, compared to a group of healthy age-related controls. Furthermore, TF activity was increased in the patients (borderline significant). Interestingly, we also observed the activity of coagulation inhibitor protein C to be higher among the patients (i.e. not decreased as reported by Tafur et al [21]. The activity of protein C correlated with a longer lagtime, whereas the activity of FVIII positively correlated with the peaks. This may imply that the increase in protein C may be a compensatory effect to diminish the hypercoagulable activity, which is also supported by the fact that the activity of both factors is increased and correlated. The changes during the treatment were modest only showing a reduced lagtime for patients with ED, and increased FVIII in patients with LD.

In agreement with our findings, Gezelius et al. found EV TF to be significantly higher in the ED patients when compared to the LD group in a large cohort of SCLC patients [46]. Debaugnies et al [47] and Königsbrügge et al [48] demonstrated that TG in cancer patients was higher than in healthy controls. The majority of patients enrolled in these two studies were diagnosed with malignancies associated with a modest to high risk of VTE [47, 48]. Nielsen et al also found an increased TG and PPL activity in patients with multiple myeloma [44]. Tripodi et al. found that an increase in FVIII and an increase in protein C was associated with a hypercoagulable profile in patients with Cushing disease [18].

We hypothesized that EVs were responsible for an increased coagulation activity in the SCLC patients, but we did not find an increased TG after addition of EVs from the cancer patients to a standard plasma. However, we observed a trend towards an increased PPL activity of EVs, and PPL activity of EVs correlated with TG of the pellets and with PPL in plasma indicating that the main PPL activity is generated of EVs. Although the total number of EVs was higher in cancer patients, the population found in the patients had a higher proportion of smaller EVs (Fig 2D). TF activity was increased in EVs, surprisingly in both 20K and 100K pellets (Fig 2C). This effect was not apparent in the TG analyses probably because the trigger reagents contained TF. According to previous publications, this effect should only be present in 20K pellet [9, 4951]. Doormaal et al [7] were not able to detect any differences in either PPL or TF activity associated with EVs between cancer patients and healthy controls. This could partly be explained by the inclusion of patients with different cancer diagnoses, which may obscure the results, as malignancies with low VTE risks may have limited activity of procoagulant EVs [10]. Zwicker et al [13] observed a higher concentration of TF positive EVs in cancer patients with VTE compared to the patients without VTE. In a paper by Tesselaar et al [12], EV-associated TF activity was elevated in only few of the included cancer patients, but the majority had levels similar to healthy controls. Contrarily to this, among patients with multiple myeloma EV-associated TF activity has been reported to be 4-fold higher than that of healthy controls [44, 52].

During the study only four patients developed a VTE (Fig 3), and it was not possible to predict these events from the coagulation measurements, which is in accordance with the RASTEN study [46]. The RASTEN study did, however, indicate that it was possible to associate TG peak with an increased mortality. It has earlier been found that the activity of TF was significantly associated with occurrence of VTE, and tumor stage, and/or malignancy grade of the cancer [7, 5355]. In the CATS study, it was found that an increased TG was significantly related to a high risk of developing VTE [56], but a later study by Thaler et al. showed that the activity of TF was associated with mortality and not with the incidence of VTE [8]. The CATS study encompasses patients with different cancer diagnoses.

cfDNA was measured as a surrogate measurement for NETs. This was increased in the cancer patients, especially in patients with ED, but it was not predictive for VTE. Previously, in a study by Demers, it was found that the formation of NETs correlated positively with both tumour progression and other prothrombotic markers [57]. Moreover, Razak found evidence of a prothrombotic capacity of NETs; they observed that NETs entangled cancerous cells allowing for tumour spread and development of a prothrombotic environment [58].

A limitation of this study is the small group of patients especially of those who developed VTE. However, the measurements of coagulation activity were clearly significant, and in the patients with VTE, we were unable to confirm an increased coagulation activity, which is in accordance with a recently published larger study on patients with SCLC [46].

In conclusion, we found that SCLC patients display an overall increased coagulation activity at time of diagnosis and during the treatment, which may contribute to their high risk of VTE. The increased coagulation activity is triggered by augmented PPL and TF activity present in the EVs but probably also other factors in plasma, such as an increased FVIII. However, the coagulation analyses could not predict the patients’ risk of VTE.

Supporting information

S1 Table. SCLC Baseline biochemistry and blood count data.

(PDF)

S1 Fig. Uncropped and original Immunoelectron microscopy (IEM) analysis of extracellular vesicle marker CD9 performed on a pool of isolated vesicles from all donors.

A) 20K pel CD9 positive vesicles. B) Both CD9 positive and negative vesicles isolated for the 100K pel. C) 100K pel CD9 positive vesicle (S2 Fig).

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Uncropped and original Western blot analysis against CD9 for the 20K and 100K EV pellets from healthy controls (HC) and small cell lung cancer patients (S2 Fig).

(TIF)

Acknowledgments

We thank the Department of Clinical Immunology at Aalborg University Hospital in Denmark for kindly allowing us the use of their ultracentrifuge and facilities.

Abbreviations

100K pel

Pellet obtained at 100,000 x g for 30 min

20K pel

Pellet obtained at 20,000 x g for 30 min

ALAT

alanine amino transferase

CAT

Calibrated automated thrombography

cfDNA

Cell free DNA

DPBS

Phosphate-Buffered Saline

ED

Extensive disease

ETP

Endogenous Thrombin Potential

EV

Extracellular vesicles

FVII

Coagulation factor VII

FVIII

Coagulation factor VIII

IEM

Immunoelectron microscopy

LD

Limited disease

NETs

Neutrophil extracellular traps

Peak

Peak height

PPL

Procoagulant phospholipids

PPP

Platelet-poor plasma

SCLC

Small cell lung cancer

SPP

Standard pool plasma

TEM

Transmission electron microscopy

TF

Tissue factor

TG

Thrombin generation

ttPeak

Time to peak

VTE

Venous thromboembolism

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

This work was funded by grants from the Danish Research Council for Independent Research, 4183-00268), https://ufm.dk/ (S.R.K.); and the Obel Family Foundation, 26145, http://www.europeanfunding-guide.eu/scholarship/7862-obel-family-foundation (S.R.K.). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Ay C, Dunkler D, Marosi C, Chiriac A-L, Vormittag R, Simanek R, et al. Prediction of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients. Blood. 2010;116(24):5377–82. doi: 10.1182/blood-2010-02-270116 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Chew HK, Davies AM, Wun T, Harvey D, Zhou H, White RH. The incidence of venous thromboembolism among patients with primary lung cancer. J Thromb Haemost. England; 2008;6(4):601–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2008.02908.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Rodrigues CA, Ferrarotto R, Filho RK, Novis YAS, Hoff PMG. Venous thromboembolism and cancer: A systematic review. Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis. 2010. p. 67–78. doi: 10.1007/s11239-010-0441-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Khorana AA, Connolly GC. Assessing risk of venous thromboembolism in the patient with cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2009. p. 4839–47. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.22.3271 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Horsted F, West J, Grainge MJ. Risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Medicine. 2012. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001275 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Walker AJ, Baldwin DR, Card TR, Powell HA, Hubbard RB, Grainge MJ. Risk of venous thromboembolism in people with lung cancer: a cohort study using linked UK healthcare data. Br J Cancer. Nature Publishing Group; 2016;115(1):115–21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.van Doormaal F, Kleinjan A, Berckmans RJ, Mackman N, Manly D, Kamphuisen PW, et al. Coagulation activation and microparticle-associated coagulant activity in cancer patients. An exploratory prospective study. Thromb Haemost. 2012;108(1):160–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Thaler J, Ay C, Mackman N, Bertina RM, Kaider a, Marosi C, et al. Microparticle-associated tissue factor activity, venous thromboembolism and mortality in pancreatic, gastric, colorectal and brain cancer patients. J Thromb Haemost. 2012;10(7):1363–70. doi: 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2012.04754.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Hisada Y, Alexander W, Kasthuri R, Voorhees P, Mobarrez F, Taylor A, et al. Measurement of microparticle tissue factor activity in clinical samples: A summary of two tissue factor-dependent FXa generation assays. Thromb Res. Elsevier Ltd; 2016;139:90–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Hisada Y, Geddings JE, Ay C, Mackman N. Venous thrombosis and cancer: from mouse models to clinical trials. J Thromb Haemost. 2015;13(8):1372–82. doi: 10.1111/jth.13009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Grover SP, Mackman N. Tissue Factor: An Essential Mediator of Hemostasis and Trigger of Thrombosis. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. United States; 2018;38(4):709–25. doi: 10.1161/ATVBAHA.117.309846 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Tesselaar METET, Romijn FPHTMPHTM, Van Der Linden IKK, Prins FA a, Bertina RMM, Osanto S. Microparticle-associated tissue factor activity: a link between cancer and thrombosis? J Thromb Haemost. 2007;5(3):520–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2007.02369.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Zwicker JI, Liebman HA, Neuberg D, Lacroix R, Bauer KA, Furie BC, et al. Tumor-Derived Tissue Factor-Bearing Microparticles Are Associated With Venous Thromboembolic Events in Malignancy. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15(22):6830–40. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-0371 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Geddings JE, Mackman N. Tumor-derived tissue factor–positive microparticles and venous thrombosis in cancer patients. Blood. 2013;122(11):1873–80. doi: 10.1182/blood-2013-04-460139 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Bharthuar A, Khorana A a, Hutson A, Wang J-G, Key NS, Mackman, et al. Circulating microparticle tissue factor, thromboembolism and survival in pancreaticobiliary cancers. Thromb Res. Elsevier B.V.; 2013;132(2):180–4. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2013.06.026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Hisada Y, Thålin C, Lundström S, Wallén H, Mackman N. Comparison of microvesicle tissue factor activity in non-cancer severely ill patients and cancer patients. Thromb Res. 2018;165:1–5. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2018.03.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Marchetti M, Tartari CJ, Russo L, Panova-Noeva M, Leuzzi A, Rambaldi A, et al. Phospholipid-dependent procoagulant activity is highly expressed by circulating microparticles in patients with essential thrombocythemia. Am J Hematol. 2014;89(1):68–73. doi: 10.1002/ajh.23590 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Tripodi A, Ammollo CT, Semeraro F, Colucci M, Malchiodi E, Verrua E, et al. Hypercoagulability in patients with Cushing disease detected by thrombin generation assay is associated with increased levels of neutrophil extracellular trap-related factors. Endocrine. Springer US; 2017;56(2):298–307. doi: 10.1007/s12020-016-1027-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Campello E, Spiezia L, Radu CM, Gavasso S, Woodhams B, Simioni P. Evaluation of a procoagulant phospholipid functional assay as a routine test for measuring circulating microparticle activity. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis. 2014;25(5):534–7. doi: 10.1097/MBC.0000000000000068 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Vormittag R, Simanek R, Ay C, Dunkler D, Quehenberger P, Marosi C, et al. High factor VIII levels independently predict venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: The cancer and thrombosis study. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2009;29(12):2176–81. doi: 10.1161/ATVBAHA.109.190827 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Tafur AJ, Dale G, Cherry M, Wren JD, Mansfield AS, Comp P, et al. Prospective evaluation of protein C and factor VIII in prediction of cancer-associated thrombosis. Thromb Res. 2015;136(6):1120–5. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2015.10.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Moik F, Posch F, Grilz E, Scheithauer W, Pabinger I, Prager G, et al. Haemostatic biomarkers for prognosis and prediction of therapy response in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Thromb Res. 2020;187:9–17. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.01.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Rak J. Microparticles in cancer. Semin Thromb Hemost. 2010;36(8):888–906. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1267043 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Zwicker JI. Predictive value of tissue factor bearing microparticles in cancer associated thrombosis. Thromb Res. Elsevier Ltd; 2010;125 Suppl:S89–91. doi: 10.1016/S0049-3848(10)70022-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Hisada Y, Mackman N. Cancer-associated pathways and biomarkers of venous thrombosis. Blood. 2017;130(13):1499–506. doi: 10.1182/blood-2017-03-743211 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Garley M, Jabłońska E, Dąbrowska D. NETs in cancer. Tumor Biol. 2016; doi: 10.1007/s13277-016-5328-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Demers M, Wagner DD. NETosis: a new factor in tumor progression and cancer-associated thrombosis. Semin Thromb Hemost. 2014;40(3):277–83. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1370765 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Thålin C, Hisada Y, Lundström S, Mackman N, Wallén H. Neutrophil Extracellular Traps: Villains and Targets in Arterial, Venous, and Cancer-Associated Thrombosis. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2019;39(9):1724–38. doi: 10.1161/ATVBAHA.119.312463 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Martinod K, Wagner DD. Thrombosis: tangled up in NETs. Blood. 2014;123(18):2768–76. doi: 10.1182/blood-2013-10-463646 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Leal AC, Mizurini DM, Gomes T, Rochael NC, Saraiva EM, Dias MS, et al. Tumor-Derived Exosomes Induce the Formation of Neutrophil Extracellular Traps: Implications For The Establishment of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):6438. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-06893-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Mauracher L-M, Posch F, Martinod K, Grilz E, Däullary T, Hell L, et al. Citrullinated histone H3, a biomarker of neutrophil extracellular trap formation, predicts the risk of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients. J Thromb Haemost. 2018;16(3):508–18. doi: 10.1111/jth.13951 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Gould TJ, Vu TT, Swystun LL, Dwivedi DJ, Mai SHC, Weitz JI, et al. Neutrophil extracellular traps promote thrombin generation through platelet-dependent and platelet-independent mechanisms. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. United States; 2014;34(9):1977–84. doi: 10.1161/ATVBAHA.114.304114 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Noubouossie DF, Whelihan MF, Yu Y-B, Sparkenbaugh E, Pawlinski R, Monroe DM, et al. In vitro activation of coagulation by human neutrophil DNA and histone proteins but not neutrophil extracellular traps. Blood. 2017;129(8):1021–9. doi: 10.1182/blood-2016-06-722298 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Mohan A, Agarwal S, Clauss M, Britt NS, Dhillon NK. Extracellular vesicles: novel communicators in lung diseases. Respir Res. 2020;21(1):175. doi: 10.1186/s12931-020-01423-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Sun Y, Huo C, Qiao Z, Shang Z, Uzzaman A, Liu S, et al. Comparative Proteomic Analysis of Exosomes and Microvesicles in Human Saliva for Lung Cancer. J Proteome Res. United States; 2018;17(3):1101–7. doi: 10.1021/acs.jproteome.7b00770 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Kadota T, Yoshioka Y, Fujita Y, Kuwano K, Ochiya T. Extracellular vesicles in lung cancer-From bench to bedside. Semin Cell Dev Biol. England; 2017;67:39–47. doi: 10.1016/j.semcdb.2017.03.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.van der Pol E, Böing AN, Harrison P, Sturk A, Nieuwland R. Classification, functions, and clinical relevance of extracellular vesicles. Pharmacol Rev. United States; 2012;64(3):676–705. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Wilts IT, Hutten BA, Meijers JCM, Spek CA, Büller HR, Kamphuisen PW. Association between protein C levels and mortality in patients with advanced prostate, lung and pancreatic cancer. Thromb Res. United States; 2017;154:1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2017.03.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Kalemkerian GP, Akerley W, Bogner P, Borghaei H, Chow LQ, Downey RJ, et al. Small cell lung cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2013;11(1):78–98. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2013.0011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Hemker HC, Giesen P, Al Dieri R, Regnault V, de Smedt E, Wagenvoord R, et al. Calibrated Automated Thrombin Generation Measurement in Clotting Plasma. Pathophysiol Haemost Thromb. 2003;33(1):4–15. doi: 10.1159/000071636 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Hisada Y, Mackman N. Measurement of tissue factor activity in extracellular vesicles from human plasma samples. Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2019;3(1):44–8. doi: 10.1002/rth2.12165 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Lötvall J, Hill AF, Hochberg F, Buzás EI, Di Vizio D, Gardiner C, et al. Minimal experimental requirements for definition of extracellular vesicles and their functions: a position statement from the International Society for Extracellular Vesicles. J Extracell vesicles. 2014;3:26913. doi: 10.3402/jev.v3.26913 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Witwer KW, Buzás EI, Bemis LT, Bora A, Lässer C, Lötvall J, et al. Standardization of sample collection, isolation and analysis methods in extracellular vesicle research. J Extracell vesicles. 2013;2:1–25. doi: 10.3402/jev.v2i0.20360 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Nielsen T, Kristensen AF, Pedersen S, Christiansen G, Kristensen SR. Investigation of procoagulant activity in extracellular vesicles isolated by differential ultracentrifugation. J Extracell Vesicles. Taylor & Francis; 2018;7(1):1454777. doi: 10.1080/20013078.2018.1454777 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Goldstraw P, Crowley J, Chansky K, Giroux DJ, Groome PA, Rami-Porta R, et al. The IASLC Lung Cancer Staging Project: proposals for the revision of the TNM stage groupings in the forthcoming (seventh) edition of the TNM Classification of malignant tumours. J Thorac Oncol Off Publ Int Assoc Study Lung Cancer. United States; 2007;2(8):706–14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Gezelius E, Flou Kristensen A, Bendahl PO, Hisada Y, Risom Kristensen S, Ek L, et al. Coagulation biomarkers and prediction of venous thromboembolism and survival in small cell lung cancer: A sub-study of RASTEN - A randomized trial with low molecular weight heparin. PLoS One. 2018;13(11):e0207387. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207387 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Debaugnies F, Azerad M-A, Noubouossié D, Rozen L, Hemker HC, Corazza F, et al. Evaluation of the procoagulant activity in the plasma of cancer patients using a thrombin generation assay. Thromb Res. Elsevier Ltd; 2010;126(6):531–5. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2010.09.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Königsbrügge O, Koder S, Riedl J, Panzer S, Pabinger I, Ay C. A new measure for in vivo thrombin activity in comparison with in vitro thrombin generation potential in patients with hyper- and hypocoagulability. Clin Exp Med. 2017;17(2):251–6. doi: 10.1007/s10238-016-0417-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Wang J-G, Manly D, Kirchhofer D, Pawlinski R, Mackman N. Levels of microparticle tissue factor activity correlate with coagulation activation in endotoxemic mice. J Thromb Haemost. 2009;7(7):1092–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2009.03448.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Noble S, Pasi J. Epidemiology and pathophysiology of cancer-associated thrombosis. Br J Cancer. Nature Publishing Group; 2010;102 Suppl(S1):S2–9. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605599 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Yáñez-Mó M, Siljander PR-M, Andreu Z, Zavec AB, Borràs FE, Buzas EI, et al. Biological properties of extracellular vesicles and their physiological functions. J Extracell vesicles. 2015;4:27066. doi: 10.3402/jev.v4.27066 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Auwerda JJ a, Yuana Y, Osanto S, de Maat MPM, Sonneveld P, Bertina RM, et al. Microparticle-associated tissue factor activity and venous thrombosis in multiple myeloma. Thromb Haemost. 2011;105(1):14–20. doi: 10.1160/TH10-03-0187 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Tesselaar MET, Romijn FPHTM, van der Linden IK, Bertina RM, Osanto S. Microparticle-associated tissue factor activity in cancer patients with and without thrombosis. J Thromb Haemost. 2009;7(8):1421–3. doi: 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2009.03504.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Manly D a, Wang J, Glover SL, Kasthuri R, Liebman H a, Key NS, et al. Increased microparticle tissue factor activity in cancer patients with Venous Thromboembolism. Thromb Res. Elsevier Ltd; 2010;125(6):511–2. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2009.09.019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Ay C, Pabinger I. Tests predictive of thrombosis in cancer. Thromb Res. Elsevier Ltd; 2010;125 Suppl:S12–5. doi: 10.1016/S0049-3848(10)70005-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Königsbrügge O, Pabinger I, Ay C. Risk factors for venous thromboembolism in cancer: Novel findings from the Vienna Cancer and Thrombosis Study (CATS). Thromb Res. Elsevier Masson SAS; 2014;133(SUPPL. 2):S39–43. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Demers M, Krause DS, Schatzberg D, Martinod K, Voorhees JR, Fuchs T a., et al. Cancers predispose neutrophils to release extracellular DNA traps that contribute to cancer-associated thrombosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109(32):13076–81. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1200419109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Abdol Razak N, Elaskalani O, Metharom P. Pancreatic Cancer-Induced Neutrophil Extracellular Traps: A Potential Contributor to Cancer-Associated Thrombosis. Int J Mol Sci. 2017;18(3). doi: 10.3390/ijms18030487 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Hugo ten Cate

11 Mar 2021

PONE-D-21-04828

Increased activity of procoagulant factors in patients with small cell lung cancer

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Pedersen,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 25 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Hugo ten Cate, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for including your ethics statement:  "The study was approved by the regional Ethical Committee (N-20140055) and in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. ".   

Please amend your current ethics statement to include the full name of the ethics committee/institutional review board(s) that approved your specific study.

Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

3. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

4. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels.

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

5. Thank you for stating the following in the 'Financial disclosure statement' Section of your manuscript:

"This work was funded by grants from the Danish Research Council for 512 Independent Research (4183-

513 00268) and the Obel Family Foundation (26145)."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

"The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Additional Editor Comments:

The expert reviewers raise a fairly large number of issues that need to be addressed and a major revision of this manuscript is therefore required before further decisions as to potential publication can be made.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: 1/ Page 5. “which is considered to be the main initiator of coagulation”. TF is the main initiator of coagulation.

2/ Page 5. Ref 11 is quite old. A more recent review on TF that discusses its role in thrombosis in PMID:29437578.

3/ Page 5. Ref 7,12, 13. PMID:23798713 should be added when discussing TF+ EVs and thrombosis in cancer.

4/ Page 5 Ref 8. Two other studies have reported an association between EV TF activity and survival in cancer patients PMID:23856554; PMID:29539580.

5/ Page 5 FVIII and risk of cancer-associated thrombosis. PMID:31945549 should be added.

6/ Page 5 “Thus, an increase in levels of EVs containing TF and PPL may play a crucial role for the risk of VTEs in cancer patients”. Additional references should be added. PMID:23798713; PMID+28807983.

7/ Page 5. More recent references describing the role of NETs in cancer are PMID:24590420; PMID31315434.

8/ Page 6. There are other sources of cfDNA in plasma. cfDNA is not a good marker of NETs. This section should be re-written.

9/ Page 6. There is some controversy about the capacity of cfDNA to activation coagulation- see PMID:27919911.

10/ Page 6. Circulating cancer cells are very rare and it is unlikely that they play a major role in occlusion of vessels.

11/ Page 6. The term extracellular vesicles is recommended to describe all forms of vesicles. These can be subdivided into large (microvesicles or microparticles) or small (exosomes) vesicles. This terminology should be introduced.

12/ Page 7. The characteristics of the control group should be added to table 1. It is not sufficient to simply describe the median age and range.

13/ Page 7. “first few millilitres were discarded”. Does this mean the first tube?

14/ Page 9. Ref 28 describes an assay to measure EV TF activity in mice. This should be replaced by PMID:30656275.

15/ Page 9. “TF-1” should be “HTF-1”.

16/ Page 12. The type of statistical test used for the analysis of the data should be added to the tables.

17/ Page 14. “platelet-poor plasma” should be changed to “PPP”.

18/ Page 15. It is not clear if the top part of Table 2 shows baseline values for the patients compared with healthy controls or includes all samples? Only baseline values should be used in this comparison.

19/ Page 16. The text states that TF activity was significantly increased in the patients compared with the healthy controls. However, Table 2 does not indicated a significant increase. This appears to be an error in the Table.

20/ Page 17. The data investigating the effect of adding back isolated vesicles to standard plasma should be removed. The reason for isolating vesicles from plasma is to remove them from the numerous inhibitors that are present in plasma. Adding them back to plasma makes no sense.

21/ Page 18. A limitation of the study is the small number of thrombotic events (=4). This should be acknowledged.

22/ Page 20. The Gezelius paper (ref 32) did not have a control group. It did show higher levels of EV TF activity in ED patients compared with LD patients.

23/ Page 20. PMID:21444402 also analyzed TG in cancer patients and should be referenced.

24/ Page 21. Do the authors have any evidence that large EVs are lost?

25/ Page 21. Doormaal is listed as ref 11 but is not present in the reference list.

26/ Page 21. Zwicker et al ref 13 did not include colorectal cancer patients.

27/ Page 21. Contrarily is not a word.

Reviewer #2: General comments: Language is in part quite vague, especially in introduction.

Can you really declare plasma pooled if it's from one patient? Might not serve as an ideal control due to the high variability of coagulation activity between individuals.

Corrections:

104: the activated coagulation factors V and VIII (FVa and FVIIIa, respectively).

109: PPL AND TF activity.

117: patients WERE enrolled

122: OF INR and...

124: technically, ASA and clopidogrel is no anticoagulant therapy

127: Better phrasing: Occurrence of intracranial haemorrhage 3 months prior to start of the study

128: What are effective contraceptives?

132: patient files

181: Is thus the right word here?

287: Table 1. Are T-. N- and M-stage explained somewhere? If not please explain inFigure legend, or leave out if not relevant for the manuscript

376 there is no figure 2E

Wouldn’t it make sense to rearrange fig 2 so it’ll fit the order in the text?

Figure legend format is different from fig 1 at least in the pdf received.

Figure 2a, I get what you’re showing but it’s a little hard to distinguish the traces.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jul 21;16(7):e0253613. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253613.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


23 Apr 2021

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

We thank you for the time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. We believe that the advised revisions and comments has heightened the scientific content and coherence of our article. In the document below, we have addressed and responded to the reviewer’s and editors’ comments - point-by-point. Throughout the manuscript, revisions are clarified using track changes mode.

In accordance to point 4, we have also included, under Supporting Information files, the original and uncropped Immunoelectron microscopy (IEM) images (see S2_raw_IEM images.pdf) and western blots (see S3_raw_WB.pdf).

In accordance to point 5, we have removed the ‘financial disclosure statement’ from the manuscript.

We would like to state under Financial disclosure statement that:

1. “This work was funded by grants from the Danish Research Council for Independent Research, 4183-00268), https://ufm.dk/ (S.R.K.); and the Obel Family Foundation, 26145, http://www.european-funding-guide.eu/scholarship/7862-obel-family-foundation

(S.R.K.).

2. “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to

publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

On behalf of the authors, we would like to express our appreciation for reviewing our manuscript.

Best regards,

Shona Pedersen, Senior Scientist, Associate Professor

Dep. of Clinical Biochemistry and Clinical Medicine

Aalborg University hospital, Aalborg University

Aalborg, Denmark

PONE-D-21-04828

Increased activity of procoagulant factors in patients with small cell lung cancer

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Pedersen,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit a revised paper.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 25 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Hugo ten Cate, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for including your ethics statement: "The study was approved by the regional Ethical Committee (N-20140055) and in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. ".

Please amend your current ethics statement to include the full name of the ethics committee/institutional review board(s) that approved your specific study. Thank for pointing this out. Our ethics statement has been revised to “Regional ethics committee for Northern Jutland” and this statement has also been included at the beginning of the Methods section.

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

3. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

We apologize for this fault. We have included the missing data under Supporting Information files, S1 Table. SCLC Baseline biochemistry and blood count data.

4. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels.

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

5. Thank you for stating the following in the 'Financial disclosure statement' Section of your manuscript:

"This work was funded by grants from the Danish Research Council for 512 Independent Research (4183-

513 00268) and the Obel Family Foundation (26145)."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: We apologize for this error. We have deleted the funding-related text from the manuscript.

"The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Additional Editor Comments:

The expert reviewers raise a fairly large number of issues that need to be addressed and a major revision of this manuscript is therefore required before further decisions as to potential publication can be made.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

We thank the reviewers for their time reviewing this paper and for their many insightful comments. We have revised the paper according to theses comments. Below are our responses to the specific points:

Reviewer #1:

1/ Page 5. “which is considered to be the main initiator of coagulation”. TF is the main initiator of coagulation. We agree, and this has now been revised in page 5

2/ Page 5. Ref 11 is quite old. A more recent review on TF that discusses its role in thrombosis in PMID:29437578. Grover SP, Mackman N. Tissue Factor: An Essential Mediator of Hemostasis and Trigger of Thrombosis. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. United States; 2018;38(4):709–25-PMID:29437578, has now been replaced as ref 11 (page 5).

3/ Page 5. Ref 7,12, 13. PMID:23798713 should be added when discussing TF+ EVs and thrombosis in cancer. Geddings JE, Mackman N. Tumor-derived tissue factor – positive microparticles and venous thrombosis in cancer patients. Blood. 2013;122(11):1873–80-PMID: 23798713, has now been added as ref 14 (page 5).

4/ Page 5. Ref 8. Two other studies have reported an association between EV TF activity and survival in cancer patients PMID:23856554; PMID:29539580. Bharthuar A, Khorana A a, Hutson A, Wang J-G, Key NS, Mackman N, et al. Circulating microparticle tissue factor, thromboembolism and survival in pancreaticobiliary cancers. Thromb Res. Elsevier B.V.; 2013;132(2):180–4- PMID:23856554 and Hisada Y, Thålin C, Lundström S, Wallén H, Mackman N. Comparison of microvesicle tissue factor activity in non-cancer severely ill patients and cancer patients. Thromb Res. 2018;165:1–5- PMID: 29539580, has now been included as reference 15 and 16, respectively (page 5).

5/ Page 5 FVIII and risk of cancer-associated thrombosis. PMID:31945589 should be added. Moik F, Posch F, Grilz E, Scheithauer W, Pabinger I, Prager G, et al. Haemostatic biomarkers for prognosis and prediction of therapy response in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Thromb Res. 2020;187:9–17. ref 22 (page 5).

6/ Page 5 “Thus, an increase in levels of EVs containing TF and PPL may play a crucial role for the risk of VTEs in cancer patients”. Additional references should be added. PMID:23798713; PMID:28807983.

Hisada Y, Mackman N. Cancer-associated pathways and biomarkers of venous thrombosis. Blood. 2017;130(13):1499–506. -PMID: 23798713 and PMID:28807983, has now been added as ref 25 and 14 (page 5).

7/ Page 5. More recent references describing the role of NETs in cancer are PMID:24590420; PMID:31315434. Demers M, Wagner DD. NETosis: a new factor in tumor progression and cancer-associated thrombosis. Semin Thromb Hemost. 2014;40(3):277–83- PMID: 24590420 and Thålin C, Hisada Y, Lundström S, Mackman N, Wallén H. Neutrophil Extracellular Traps: Villains and Targets in Arterial, Venous, and Cancer-Associated Thrombosis. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2019;39(9):1724–38- PMID: 31315434, has now been added as ref 27 and 28 (page 5).

8/ Page 6. There are other sources of cfDNA in plasma. cfDNA is not a good marker of NETs. This section should be re-written. We agree with the reviewer that cfDNA is not a very good marker. On the other hand we have no perfect markers, and cfDNA has been used as a marker in many other studies (as e.g. described in Thålin et al, ref 28). To-day we would perhaps have made another choice but this was what was decided to measure some years ago when the project was planned. We have rewritten the section.

9/ Page 6. There is some controversy about the capacity of cfDNA to activation coagulation- see PMID:27919911. Please see the former point.

10/ Page 6. Circulating cancer cells are very rare and it is unlikely that they play a major role in occlusion of vessels. We agree, and we have removed the sentence.

11/ Page 6. The term extracellular vesicles is recommended to describe all forms of vesicles. These can be subdivided into large (microvesicles or microparticles) or small (exosomes) vesicles. This terminology should be introduced. The term EVs, including microvesicles and exosomes, has now been introduced and described in page 6. Important references to support the EV description has also been included (ref 35-36) page 6.

12/ Page 7. The characteristics of the control group should be added to table 1. It is not sufficient to simply describe the median age and range. We have now added this information to Table 1.

13/ Page 7. “first few millilitres were discarded”. Does this mean the first tube? Yes. This has now been corrected (page 7)

14/ Page 9. Ref 28 describes an assay to measure EV TF activity in mice. This should be replaced by PMID:30656275. Hisada Y, Mackman N. Measurement of tissue factor activity in extracellular vesicles from human plasma samples. Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2019;3(1):44–8- PMID:30656275, has now been added as ref 41 (page 9).

15/ Page 9. “TF-1” should be “HTF-1”. This has now been revised on page page 9.

16/ Page 12. The type of statistical test used for the analysis of the data should be added to the tables. The statistic applied are now included in the Table text for Table 2 and 3.

17/ Page 14. “platelet-poor plasma” should be changed to “PPP”. This has now been revised in page 14.

18/ Page 15. It is not clear if the top part of Table 2 shows baseline values for the patients compared with healthy controls or includes all samples? Only baseline values should be used in this comparison. The table includes initial data on controls versus SCLC baseline patients. Moreover, the SCLC patients were further divided into limited (LD) or extended (ED) disease and followed during treatment and follow-up. This has now been clarified in the table. An additional table 2 text now included to clarify this (page 15).

19/ Page 16. The text states that TF activity was significantly increased in the patients compared with the healthy controls. However, Table 2 does not indicated a significant increase. This appears to be an error in the Table. Yes, it was correct that there was 9-fold increase in TF activity, but this was only borderline significant (p=0.51), due to the variation. This has now been explained on page 16.

20/ Page 17. The data investigating the effect of adding back isolated vesicles to standard plasma should be removed. The reason for isolating vesicles from plasma is to remove them from the numerous inhibitors that are present in plasma. Adding them back to plasma makes no sense. We agree with the reviewer that they do not describe very exciting results, and especially the results in fig 2A were disappointing. However, we do not agree that it makes no sense to add them to a standard plasma. In this environment, we have “normalized” everything except EVs, and therefore we can compare the effect of these. We have done this before in another population, patients with malignant myeloma (Plos One: doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210835), where we saw a substantial effect. We agree and admit that there is some overlap with the other measurements (TF and PPL), but we think that the results supplement each other. We were surprised that we did not find a difference in TG, because we had found the opposite in the previous paper on malignant myeloma. Since these results also represent a considerable amount of work, we would prefer to keep this figure in the paper. However, if the editor prefers to discard the figure, we are of course willing to do so.

21/ Page 18. A limitation of the study is the small number of thrombotic events (=4). This should be acknowledged. We certainly agree, but this was initially mentioned in the paper (page 22).

22/ Page 20. The Gezelius paper did not have a control group. It did show higher levels of EV TF activity in ED patients compared with LD patients. Yes, it is correct that the Gezelius et al. paper did not include control persons in their study. We apologize for the mistake, but our findings on significantly increased EV TF activity in the LD patients, is comparable. This has been changed in the paper.

23/ Page 20. PMID:21444402 also analyzed TG in cancer patients and should be referenced. We are sorry, but It was not possible to locate the article with the advised PMID number.

24/ Page 21. Do the authors have any evidence that large EVs are lost? No, it was pure speculation. It has now been removed from the article.

25/ Page 21. Doormaal is listed as ref 11 but is not present in the reference list. Thank you for pointing this out. Doormaal is now included as reference 7, this has now been rectified in the main text.

26/ Page 21. Zwicker et al ref 13 did not include colorectal cancer patients. Thank you for pointing this out. Cancer patients of different histologies, with and without evidence of acute VTE (venous thromboembolism), were included in this study. This has now been corrected to “Zwicker et al [13] observed a higher concentration of TF positive EVs in cancer patients with VTE compared to the patients without VTE”

27/ Page 21. Contrarily is not a word. According to the Cambridge English dictionary this is an English word meaning “in a way opposite of something”

Reviewer #2: General comments: Language is in part quite vague, especially in introduction.

Can you really declare plasma pooled if it's from one patient? Might not serve as an ideal control due to the high variability of coagulation activity between individuals. Thank you for your comments and suggestions. We have tried to strengthen the language and made several, although smaller changes. We agree with the reviewer’s point regarding “pooled plasma”. It was not a pooled plasma when it originated from just one person, and we have changed it to “Standard plasma”. It can be argued that a real normal plasma from more persons would be preferable, but it is only used as a basis for comparison of EVs from the different patients, and, therefore, we think that it is OK to use this standard plasma as we call it.

Corrections:

104: the activated coagulation factors V and VIII (FVa and FVIIIa, respectively). This has now been corrected (page 6).

109: PPL AND TF activity. This has now been corrected (page 6).

117: patients WERE enrolled This has now been corrected (page 7).

122: OF INR and... This has now been corrected (page 7).

124: technically, ASA and clopidogrel is no anticoagulant therapy. Yes, we agree. This has been corrected to “(platelet inhibitors, ASA and clopidogrel were allowed),” in page 7.

127: Better phrasing: Occurrence of intracranial haemorrhage 3 months prior to start of the study. Thank you, this has now been rephrased, accordingly (page 7).

128: What are effective contraceptives? Thank you for pointing this out, “effective” has been removed from the sentence, and it has been changed to oral contraceptives (page 7).

132: patient files This has now been corrected (page 7).

181: Is thus the right word here? “Thus” has been removed from the sentence (page 9).

287: Table 1. Are T-. N- and M-stage explained somewhere? If not please explain in Figure legend, or leave out if not relevant for the manuscript. Yes, TMN (Tumor, lymph Node, and Metastasis) staging has now been mentioned (and defined) in the result section and in the table text for Table 1.

376 there is no figure 2E We apologize for this fault - this has now been corrected in the figure text ( line 402)

Wouldn’t it make sense to rearrange fig 2 so it’ll fit the order in the text? Yes, we agree. We have changed the text to match the corresponding figures.

Figure legend format is different from fig 1 at least in the pdf received. The legend style for figures 1 and 2 is the same (at least in our Word-paper).

Figure 2a, I get what you’re showing but it’s a little hard to distinguish the traces. Yes, we agree that the various curves are difficult to distinguish because they are not very different. However, these were the attained results, and the impression from the figure is exactly that they are; hardly different, so we hope that it is OK.

________________________________________

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Hugo ten Cate

19 May 2021

PONE-D-21-04828R1

Increased activity of procoagulant factors in patients with small cell lung cancer

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Pedersen,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 03 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Hugo ten Cate, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

One reviewer still has some relevant suggestions for improvement of the manuscript, the other reviewer abstains from additional comments.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: General comments.

- Replace Standard pooled Plasma (SPP) with SP in figures and methods (‘Isolation of extracellular vesicles’),

- The NET paragraph in the introduction contains very bulky language which should be improved, see remarks below.

___________________________

P5 lines 97-98 Better: Neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) have been linked to the formation of VTEs and may also play a role in cancer-associated thrombosis.

P6 lines 101-106. . Better something like: Although there is no single marker to determine NETs in plasma, surrogate markers for NETs include plasma levels of cfDNA, citrullinated histone H3 and myeloperoxidase. In addition, cfDNA was described to carry a procoagulant activity on its own and therefore might give insight about NET-associated procoagulant activity in patient plasma samples.

P6 l. 109 has been = have been

P.6 l. 113- 116. Better: A low protC activity was associated with increased mortality in different malignancies, e.g. in non-metastasizing lung cancer (38).

P7 l.127: remove the second 'patients'.

P7 l. 131: age over 18 YEARS

P7 l 140: Pregnant and/ or breast-feeding women and women who did not use oral contraceptives were excluded.

P.18/19 Result section Fig 2. Why do you include a curve for Standard Plasma if you don’t mention it in the text? Maybe explain the relevance of the curve not only in the figure legend. Also replace SPP with SP in the Figure and legends.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jul 21;16(7):e0253613. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253613.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


26 May 2021

PONE-D-21-04828

Increased activity of procoagulant factors in patients with small cell lung cancer

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Pedersen,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 03 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

•A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

•A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

•An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Hugo ten Cate, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

One reviewer still has some relevant suggestions for improvement of the manuscript, the other reviewer abstains from additional comments.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: General comments.

- Replace Standard pooled Plasma (SPP) with SP in figures and methods (‘Isolation of extracellular vesicles’),

Thank you for pointing this out. SPP has now been changed to SP in the actual Figure 2, the associated Figure legend and in the results describing SP (page 17, Line 377).

- The NET paragraph in the introduction contains very bulky language which should be improved, see remarks below.

___________________________

P5 lines 97-98 Better: Neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) have been linked to the formation of VTEs and may also play a role in cancer-associated thrombosis.

Thank you for rephrasing this sentence. This has now been added to the final manuscript, page 5, line 98.

P6 lines 101-106. . Better something like: Although there is no single marker to determine NETs in plasma, surrogate markers for NETs include plasma levels of cfDNA, citrullinated histone H3 and myeloperoxidase. In addition, cfDNA was described to carry a procoagulant activity on its own and therefore might give insight about NET-associated procoagulant activity in patient plasma samples.

Thank you for a better phrasing on the information on NETs. This has now been added to the final manuscript, page 5, line 100-104.

P6 l. 109 has been = have been

This has now been changed.

P.6 l. 113- 116. Better: A low protC activity was associated with increased mortality in different malignancies, e.g. in non-metastasizing lung cancer (38).

Thank you for rephrasing this sentence. This has now been added to the final manuscript, page 5.

P7 l.127: remove the second 'patients'.

This has now been removed.

P7 l. 131: age over 18 YEARS

This has now been changed from age ≥ 18 to age over 18 years.

P7 l 140: Pregnant and/ or breast-feeding women and women who did not use oral contraceptives were excluded.

Thank you for rephrasing this sentence. This has now been changed in the final manuscript.

P.18/19 Result section Fig 2. Why do you include a curve for Standard Plasma if you don’t mention it in the text? Maybe explain the relevance of the curve not only in the figure legend. Also replace SPP with SP in the Figure and legends.

SPP has been replaced by SP in the figure and the legends (page 18). The thrombograms shown in Fig 2A is included to demonstrate that SP in the absence of EVs indicates longer lagtime with a reduced peak height, whereas controls and SCLC patient samples spiked with EVs, reflected shorter lagtime with higher peak height. We have also included additional text (page 17)

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Christophe Leroyer

9 Jun 2021

Increased activity of procoagulant factors in patients with small cell lung cancer

PONE-D-21-04828R2

Dear Dr. Pedersen,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Christophe Leroyer

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Christophe Leroyer

7 Jul 2021

PONE-D-21-04828R2

Increased activity of procoagulant factors in patients with small cell lung cancer

Dear Dr. Pedersen:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Christophe Leroyer

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. SCLC Baseline biochemistry and blood count data.

    (PDF)

    S1 Fig. Uncropped and original Immunoelectron microscopy (IEM) analysis of extracellular vesicle marker CD9 performed on a pool of isolated vesicles from all donors.

    A) 20K pel CD9 positive vesicles. B) Both CD9 positive and negative vesicles isolated for the 100K pel. C) 100K pel CD9 positive vesicle (S2 Fig).

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Uncropped and original Western blot analysis against CD9 for the 20K and 100K EV pellets from healthy controls (HC) and small cell lung cancer patients (S2 Fig).

    (TIF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES