PURPOSE: Lymph node status is a strong predictor of outcome for lung cancer patients. Recently, several reports have hinted that gene expression profiles of primary tumor may be able to predict node status. The goals of this study were to determine if microarray data could be used to accurately classify patients with regard to pathologic lymph node status, and to determine if this analysis could identify patients at risk for occult disease and worse survival. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Two previously published lung adenocarcinoma microarray data sets were reanalyzed. Patients were separated into two groups based on pathologic lymph node positive (pN+) or negative (pN0) status, and prediction analysis of microarray (PAM) was used for training and validation to classify nodal status. Overall survival analysis was performed based on PAM classifications. RESULTS: In the training phase, a 318-gene set gave classification accuracy of 88.4% when compared with pathology. Survival was significantly worse in PAM-positive compared with PAM-negative patients overall (P < 0.0001) and also when confined to pN0 patients only (P = 0.0037). In the validation set, classification accuracy was again 94.1% in the pN+ patients but only 21.2% in the pN0 patients. However, among the pN0 patients, recurrence rates and overall survival were significantly worse in the PAM-positive compared with PAM-negative patients (P = 0.0258 and 0.0507). CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of gene expression profiles from primary tumor may predict lymph node status but frequently misclassifies pN0 patients as node positive. Recurrence rates and overall survival are worse in these "misclassified" patients, implying that they may in fact have occult disease spread.
PURPOSE: Lymph node status is a strong predictor of outcome for lung cancerpatients. Recently, several reports have hinted that gene expression profiles of primary tumor may be able to predict node status. The goals of this study were to determine if microarray data could be used to accurately classify patients with regard to pathologic lymph node status, and to determine if this analysis could identify patients at risk for occult disease and worse survival. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Two previously published lung adenocarcinoma microarray data sets were reanalyzed. Patients were separated into two groups based on pathologic lymph node positive (pN+) or negative (pN0) status, and prediction analysis of microarray (PAM) was used for training and validation to classify nodal status. Overall survival analysis was performed based on PAM classifications. RESULTS: In the training phase, a 318-gene set gave classification accuracy of 88.4% when compared with pathology. Survival was significantly worse in PAM-positive compared with PAM-negative patients overall (P < 0.0001) and also when confined to pN0 patients only (P = 0.0037). In the validation set, classification accuracy was again 94.1% in the pN+ patients but only 21.2% in the pN0 patients. However, among the pN0 patients, recurrence rates and overall survival were significantly worse in the PAM-positive compared with PAM-negative patients (P = 0.0258 and 0.0507). CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of gene expression profiles from primary tumor may predict lymph node status but frequently misclassifies pN0 patients as node positive. Recurrence rates and overall survival are worse in these "misclassified" patients, implying that they may in fact have occult disease spread.
Authors: Sven Diederichs; Etmar Bulk; Björn Steffen; Ping Ji; Lara Tickenbrock; Kerstin Lang; Kurt S Zänker; Ralf Metzger; Paul M Schneider; Volker Gerke; Michael Thomas; Wolfgang E Berdel; Hubert Serve; Carsten Müller-Tidow Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2004-08-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Erich Huang; Skye H Cheng; Holly Dressman; Jennifer Pittman; Mei Hua Tsou; Cheng Fang Horng; Andrea Bild; Edwin S Iversen; Ming Liao; Chii Ming Chen; Mike West; Joseph R Nevins; Andrew T Huang Journal: Lancet Date: 2003-05-10 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: David G Beer; Sharon L R Kardia; Chiang-Ching Huang; Thomas J Giordano; Albert M Levin; David E Misek; Lin Lin; Guoan Chen; Tarek G Gharib; Dafydd G Thomas; Michelle L Lizyness; Rork Kuick; Satoru Hayasaka; Jeremy M G Taylor; Mark D Iannettoni; Mark B Orringer; Samir Hanash Journal: Nat Med Date: 2002-07-15 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Olivier Gevaert; Jiajing Xu; Chuong D Hoang; Ann N Leung; Yue Xu; Andrew Quon; Daniel L Rubin; Sandy Napel; Sylvia K Plevritis Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-06-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Walter Hundt; Esther L Yuh; Mykhaylo Burbelko; Andreas Kiessling; Mark D Bednarski; Silke Steinbach Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2011-10-15 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Robert Zoltaszek; Piotr Kowalczyk; Magdalena C Kowalczyk; Margaret Hanausek; Zofia M Kilianska; Thomas J Slaga; Zbigniew Walaszek Journal: Oncol Lett Date: 2010-11-23 Impact factor: 2.967
Authors: William D Travis; Elisabeth Brambilla; Masayuki Noguchi; Andrew G Nicholson; Kim R Geisinger; Yasushi Yatabe; David G Beer; Charles A Powell; Gregory J Riely; Paul E Van Schil; Kavita Garg; John H M Austin; Hisao Asamura; Valerie W Rusch; Fred R Hirsch; Giorgio Scagliotti; Tetsuya Mitsudomi; Rudolf M Huber; Yuichi Ishikawa; James Jett; Montserrat Sanchez-Cespedes; Jean-Paul Sculier; Takashi Takahashi; Masahiro Tsuboi; Johan Vansteenkiste; Ignacio Wistuba; Pan-Chyr Yang; Denise Aberle; Christian Brambilla; Douglas Flieder; Wilbur Franklin; Adi Gazdar; Michael Gould; Philip Hasleton; Douglas Henderson; Bruce Johnson; David Johnson; Keith Kerr; Keiko Kuriyama; Jin Soo Lee; Vincent A Miller; Iver Petersen; Victor Roggli; Rafael Rosell; Nagahiro Saijo; Erik Thunnissen; Ming Tsao; David Yankelewitz Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 15.609