Zhifu Sun1, Dennis A Wigle, Ping Yang. 1. Department of Health Sciences Research, College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA. sun.zhifu@mayo.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: Gene expression profiling for outcome prediction of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains clouded by heterogeneous and unvalidated results. This study applied multivariate approaches to identify and evaluate value-added gene expression signatures in two types of NSCLC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two NSCLC oligonucleotide microarray data sets of adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma were used as training sets to select prognostic genes independent of conventional predictors. The top 50 genes from each set were used to predict the outcomes of two independent validation data sets of 84 and 91 NSCLC cases. RESULTS: Adenocarcinomas with the 50-gene signature from adenocarcinoma in both validation data sets had a 2.4-fold (95% CI, 1.3 to 4.4 and 1.0 to 5.8) increased mortality after adjustment for conventional predictors. Squamous cell carcinoma with this high-risk signature had an adjusted risk of 1.1 (95% CI, 0.4 to 3.2) in one data set and 2.5 (95% CI, 1.1 to 5.8) in another consisting of stage I tumors. Adenocarcinoma with the 50-gene signature from squamous cell carcinoma had an elevated risk of 3.5 (95% CI, 1.4 to 9.0) after adjustment for conventional predictors. Squamous cell carcinoma with this high risk signature had an adjusted risk of 1.8 (95% CI, 0.7 to 4.6). Despite the little overlap in individual genes, the two gene signatures had significant functional connectedness in molecular pathways. CONCLUSION: Two non-overlapping but functionally related gene expression signatures provide consistently improved survival prediction for NSCLC regardless of histologic cell type. Multiple sets of genes may exist for NSCLC with predictive value, but ones with independent predictive value beyond clinical predictors will be required for clinical translation.
PURPOSE: Gene expression profiling for outcome prediction of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains clouded by heterogeneous and unvalidated results. This study applied multivariate approaches to identify and evaluate value-added gene expression signatures in two types of NSCLC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two NSCLC oligonucleotide microarray data sets of adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma were used as training sets to select prognostic genes independent of conventional predictors. The top 50 genes from each set were used to predict the outcomes of two independent validation data sets of 84 and 91 NSCLC cases. RESULTS:Adenocarcinomas with the 50-gene signature from adenocarcinoma in both validation data sets had a 2.4-fold (95% CI, 1.3 to 4.4 and 1.0 to 5.8) increased mortality after adjustment for conventional predictors. Squamous cell carcinoma with this high-risk signature had an adjusted risk of 1.1 (95% CI, 0.4 to 3.2) in one data set and 2.5 (95% CI, 1.1 to 5.8) in another consisting of stage I tumors. Adenocarcinoma with the 50-gene signature from squamous cell carcinoma had an elevated risk of 3.5 (95% CI, 1.4 to 9.0) after adjustment for conventional predictors. Squamous cell carcinoma with this high risk signature had an adjusted risk of 1.8 (95% CI, 0.7 to 4.6). Despite the little overlap in individual genes, the two gene signatures had significant functional connectedness in molecular pathways. CONCLUSION: Two non-overlapping but functionally related gene expression signatures provide consistently improved survival prediction for NSCLC regardless of histologic cell type. Multiple sets of genes may exist for NSCLC with predictive value, but ones with independent predictive value beyond clinical predictors will be required for clinical translation.
Authors: Dung-Tsa Chen; Ying-Lin Hsu; William J Fulp; Domenico Coppola; Eric B Haura; Timothy J Yeatman; W Douglas Cress Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-12-08 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Johannes R Kratz; Jianxing He; Stephen K Van Den Eeden; Zhi-Hua Zhu; Wen Gao; Patrick T Pham; Michael S Mulvihill; Fatemeh Ziaei; Huanrong Zhang; Bo Su; Xiuyi Zhi; Charles P Quesenberry; Laurel A Habel; Qiuhua Deng; Zongfei Wang; Jiangfen Zhou; Huiling Li; Mei-Chun Huang; Che-Chung Yeh; Mark R Segal; M Roshni Ray; Kirk D Jones; Dan J Raz; Zhidong Xu; Thierry M Jahan; David Berryman; Biao He; Michael J Mann; David M Jablons Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-01-27 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Paul C Boutros; Suzanne K Lau; Melania Pintilie; Ni Liu; Frances A Shepherd; Sandy D Der; Ming-Sound Tsao; Linda Z Penn; Igor Jurisica Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2009-02-05 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Elena Martínez-Terroba; Carmen Behrens; Fernando J de Miguel; Jackeline Agorreta; Eduard Monsó; Laura Millares; Cristina Sainz; Miguel Mesa-Guzman; José Luis Pérez-Gracia; María Dolores Lozano; Javier J Zulueta; Ruben Pio; Ignacio I Wistuba; Luis M Montuenga; María J Pajares Journal: J Pathol Date: 2018-06-20 Impact factor: 7.996
Authors: Alison K Bauer; Jennifer Fostel; Laura M Degraff; Elizabeth A Rondini; Christopher Walker; Sherry F Grissom; Julie Foley; Steven R Kleeberger Journal: Mol Cancer Date: 2009-11-19 Impact factor: 27.401