PURPOSE: To develop a gene expression-based classifier for neuroblastoma patients that reliably predicts courses of the disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two hundred fifty-one neuroblastoma specimens were analyzed using a customized oligonucleotide microarray comprising 10,163 probes for transcripts with differential expression in clinical subgroups of the disease. Subsequently, the prediction analysis for microarrays (PAM) was applied to a first set of patients with maximally divergent clinical courses (n = 77). The classification accuracy was estimated by a complete 10-times-repeated 10-fold cross validation, and a 144-gene predictor was constructed from this set. This classifier's predictive power was evaluated in an independent second set (n = 174) by comparing results of the gene expression-based classification with those of risk stratification systems of current trials from Germany, Japan, and the United States. RESULTS: The first set of patients was accurately predicted by PAM (cross-validated accuracy, 99%). Within the second set, the PAM classifier significantly separated cohorts with distinct courses (3-year event-free survival [EFS] 0.86 +/- 0.03 [favorable; n = 115] v 0.52 +/- 0.07 [unfavorable; n = 59] and 3-year overall survival 0.99 +/- 0.01 v 0.84 +/- 0.05; both P < .0001) and separated risk groups of current neuroblastoma trials into subgroups with divergent outcome (NB2004: low-risk 3-year EFS 0.86 +/- 0.04 v 0.25 +/- 0.15, P < .0001; intermediate-risk 1.00 v 0.57 +/- 0.19, P = .018; high-risk 0.81 +/- 0.10 v 0.56 +/- 0.08, P = .06). In a multivariate Cox regression model, the PAM predictor classified patients of the second set more accurately than risk stratification of current trials from Germany, Japan, and the United States (P < .001; hazard ratio, 4.756 [95% CI, 2.544 to 8.893]). CONCLUSION: Integration of gene expression-based class prediction of neuroblastoma patients may improve risk estimation of current neuroblastoma trials.
PURPOSE: To develop a gene expression-based classifier for neuroblastomapatients that reliably predicts courses of the disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two hundred fifty-one neuroblastoma specimens were analyzed using a customized oligonucleotide microarray comprising 10,163 probes for transcripts with differential expression in clinical subgroups of the disease. Subsequently, the prediction analysis for microarrays (PAM) was applied to a first set of patients with maximally divergent clinical courses (n = 77). The classification accuracy was estimated by a complete 10-times-repeated 10-fold cross validation, and a 144-gene predictor was constructed from this set. This classifier's predictive power was evaluated in an independent second set (n = 174) by comparing results of the gene expression-based classification with those of risk stratification systems of current trials from Germany, Japan, and the United States. RESULTS: The first set of patients was accurately predicted by PAM (cross-validated accuracy, 99%). Within the second set, the PAM classifier significantly separated cohorts with distinct courses (3-year event-free survival [EFS] 0.86 +/- 0.03 [favorable; n = 115] v 0.52 +/- 0.07 [unfavorable; n = 59] and 3-year overall survival 0.99 +/- 0.01 v 0.84 +/- 0.05; both P < .0001) and separated risk groups of current neuroblastoma trials into subgroups with divergent outcome (NB2004: low-risk 3-year EFS 0.86 +/- 0.04 v 0.25 +/- 0.15, P < .0001; intermediate-risk 1.00 v 0.57 +/- 0.19, P = .018; high-risk 0.81 +/- 0.10 v 0.56 +/- 0.08, P = .06). In a multivariate Cox regression model, the PAM predictor classified patients of the second set more accurately than risk stratification of current trials from Germany, Japan, and the United States (P < .001; hazard ratio, 4.756 [95% CI, 2.544 to 8.893]). CONCLUSION: Integration of gene expression-based class prediction of neuroblastomapatients may improve risk estimation of current neuroblastoma trials.
Authors: Yang Yu; Yanling Zhao; Yihui Fan; Zhenghu Chen; Hui Li; Jiaxiong Lu; Kevin Guo; Sarah E Woodfield; Sanjeev A Vasudevan; Jianhua Yang; Jed G Nuchtern Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2019-04-08 Impact factor: 6.261
Authors: Jennifer C Kasemeier-Kulesa; Santiago Schnell; Thomas Woolley; Jennifer A Spengler; Jason A Morrison; Mary C McKinney; Irina Pushel; Lauren A Wolfe; Paul M Kulesa Journal: Biophys Chem Date: 2018-04-30 Impact factor: 2.352
Authors: Andrea Cornero; Massimo Acquaviva; Paolo Fardin; Rogier Versteeg; Alexander Schramm; Alessandra Eva; Maria Carla Bosco; Fabiola Blengio; Sara Barzaghi; Luigi Varesio Journal: BMC Bioinformatics Date: 2012-03-28 Impact factor: 3.169
Authors: Linda J Valentijn; Jan Koster; Franciska Haneveld; Rachida Ait Aissa; Peter van Sluis; Marloes E C Broekmans; Jan J Molenaar; Johan van Nes; Rogier Versteeg Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2012-10-22 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Erik H Knelson; Angela L Gaviglio; Alok K Tewari; Michael B Armstrong; Karthikeyan Mythreye; Gerard C Blobe Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Jakob Lovén; Nikolay Zinin; Therese Wahlström; Inga Müller; Petter Brodin; Erik Fredlund; Ulf Ribacke; Andor Pivarcsi; Sven Påhlman; Marie Henriksson Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2010-01-04 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Erik H Knelson; Angela L Gaviglio; Jasmine C Nee; Mark D Starr; Andrew B Nixon; Stephen G Marcus; Gerard C Blobe Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2014-06-17 Impact factor: 14.808