BACKGROUND: DNA microarray technology has emerged as a major tool for exploring cancer biology and solving clinical issues. Predicting a patient's response to chemotherapy is one such issue; successful prediction would make it possible to give patients the most appropriate chemotherapy regimen. Patient response can be classified as either a pathologic complete response (PCR) or residual disease (NoPCR), and these strongly correlate with patient outcome. Microarrays can be used as multigenic predictors of patient response, but probe selection remains problematic. In this study, each probe set was considered as an elementary predictor of the response and was ranked on its ability to predict a high number of PCR and NoPCR cases in a ratio similar to that seen in the learning set. We defined a valuation function that assigned high values to probe sets according to how different the expression of the genes was and to how closely the relative proportions of PCR and NoPCR predictions to the proportions observed in the learning set was. Multigenic predictors were designed by selecting probe sets highly ranked in their predictions and tested using several validation sets. RESULTS: Our method defined three types of probe sets: 71% were mono-informative probe sets (59% predicted only NoPCR, and 12% predicted only PCR), 25% were bi-informative, and 4% were non-informative. Using a valuation function to rank the probe sets allowed us to select those that correctly predicted the response of a high number of patient cases in the training set and that predicted a PCR/NoPCR ratio for validation sets that was similar to that of the whole learning set. Based on DLDA and the nearest centroid method, bi-informative probes proved more successful predictors than probes selected using a t test. CONCLUSION: Prediction of the response to breast cancer preoperative chemotherapy was significantly improved by selecting DNA probe sets that were successful in predicting outcomes for the entire learning set, both in terms of accurately predicting a high number of cases and in correctly predicting the ratio of PCR to NoPCR cases.
BACKGROUND: DNA microarray technology has emerged as a major tool for exploring cancer biology and solving clinical issues. Predicting a patient's response to chemotherapy is one such issue; successful prediction would make it possible to give patients the most appropriate chemotherapy regimen. Patient response can be classified as either a pathologic complete response (PCR) or residual disease (NoPCR), and these strongly correlate with patient outcome. Microarrays can be used as multigenic predictors of patient response, but probe selection remains problematic. In this study, each probe set was considered as an elementary predictor of the response and was ranked on its ability to predict a high number of PCR and NoPCR cases in a ratio similar to that seen in the learning set. We defined a valuation function that assigned high values to probe sets according to how different the expression of the genes was and to how closely the relative proportions of PCR and NoPCR predictions to the proportions observed in the learning set was. Multigenic predictors were designed by selecting probe sets highly ranked in their predictions and tested using several validation sets. RESULTS: Our method defined three types of probe sets: 71% were mono-informative probe sets (59% predicted only NoPCR, and 12% predicted only PCR), 25% were bi-informative, and 4% were non-informative. Using a valuation function to rank the probe sets allowed us to select those that correctly predicted the response of a high number of patient cases in the training set and that predicted a PCR/NoPCR ratio for validation sets that was similar to that of the whole learning set. Based on DLDA and the nearest centroid method, bi-informative probes proved more successful predictors than probes selected using a t test. CONCLUSION: Prediction of the response to breast cancer preoperative chemotherapy was significantly improved by selecting DNA probe sets that were successful in predicting outcomes for the entire learning set, both in terms of accurately predicting a high number of cases and in correctly predicting the ratio of PCR to NoPCR cases.
Authors: Keith Anderson; Kenneth R Hess; Mini Kapoor; Stephen Tirrell; Jean Courtemanche; Bailiang Wang; Yun Wu; Yun Gong; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; W Fraser Symmans; Lajos Pusztai Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2006-03-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Roman Rouzier; Radhika Rajan; Peter Wagner; Kenneth R Hess; David L Gold; James Stec; Mark Ayers; Jeffrey S Ross; Peter Zhang; Thomas A Buchholz; Henry Kuerer; Marjorie Green; Banu Arun; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; W Fraser Symmans; Lajos Pusztai Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2005-05-24 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Annuska M Glas; Arno Floore; Leonie J M J Delahaye; Anke T Witteveen; Rob C F Pover; Niels Bakx; Jaana S T Lahti-Domenici; Tako J Bruinsma; Marc O Warmoes; René Bernards; Lodewyk F A Wessels; Laura J Van't Veer Journal: BMC Genomics Date: 2006-10-30 Impact factor: 3.969
Authors: N Ancona; R Maglietta; A Piepoli; A D'Addabbo; R Cotugno; M Savino; S Liuni; M Carella; G Pesole; F Perri Journal: BMC Bioinformatics Date: 2006-08-19 Impact factor: 3.169
Authors: Vincent Gardeux; Rachid Chelouah; Maria F Barbosa Wanderley; Patrick Siarry; Antônio P Braga; Fabien Reyal; Roman Rouzier; Lajos Pusztai; René Natowicz Journal: Cancer Inform Date: 2015-04-19