Literature DB >> 18715778

Combining biological gene expression signatures in predicting outcome in breast cancer: An alternative to supervised classification.

Dimitry S A Nuyten1, Trevor Hastie, Jen-Tsan Ashley Chi, Howard Y Chang, Marc J van de Vijver.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Gene expression profiling has been extensively used to predict outcome in breast cancer patients. We have previously reported on biological hypothesis-driven analysis of gene expression profiling data and we wished to extend this approach through the combinations of various gene signatures to improve the prediction of outcome in breast cancer.
METHODS: We have used gene expression data (25.000 gene probes) from a previously published study of tumours from 295 early stage breast cancer patients from the Netherlands Cancer Institute using updated follow-up. Tumours were assigned to three prognostic groups using the previously reported Wound-response and hypoxia-response signatures, and the outcome in each of these subgroups was evaluated.
RESULTS: We have assigned invasive breast carcinomas from 295 stages I and II breast cancer patients to three groups based on gene expression profiles subdivided by the wound-response signature (WS) and hypoxia-response signature (HS). These three groups are (1) quiescent WS/non-hypoxic HS; (2) activated WS/non-hypoxic HS or quiescent WS/hypoxic tumours and (3) activated WS/hypoxic HS. The overall survival at 15 years for patients with tumours in groups 1, 2 and 3 are 79%, 59% and 27%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, this signature is not only independent of clinical and pathological risk factors; it is also the strongest predictor of outcome. Compared to a previously identified 70-gene prognosis profile, obtained with supervised classification, the combination of signatures performs roughly equally well and might have additional value in the ER-negative subgroup. In the subgroup of lymph node positive patients, the combination signature outperforms the 70-gene signature in multivariate analysis. In addition, in multivariate analysis, the WS/HS combination is a stronger predictor of outcome compared to the recently reported invasiveness gene signature combined with the WS.
CONCLUSION: A combination of biological gene expression signatures can be used to identify a powerful and independent predictor for outcome in breast cancer patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18715778      PMCID: PMC3756930          DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.07.015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cancer        ISSN: 0959-8049            Impact factor:   9.162


  33 in total

Review 1.  Exploiting tumour hypoxia in cancer treatment.

Authors:  J Martin Brown; William R Wilson
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 60.716

2.  Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer.

Authors:  Laura J van 't Veer; Hongyue Dai; Marc J van de Vijver; Yudong D He; Augustinus A M Hart; Mao Mao; Hans L Peterse; Karin van der Kooy; Matthew J Marton; Anke T Witteveen; George J Schreiber; Ron M Kerkhoven; Chris Roberts; Peter S Linsley; René Bernards; Stephen H Friend
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2002-01-31       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  Molecular portraits of human breast tumours.

Authors:  C M Perou; T Sørlie; M B Eisen; M van de Rijn; S S Jeffrey; C A Rees; J R Pollack; D T Ross; H Johnsen; L A Akslen; O Fluge; A Pergamenschikov; C Williams; S X Zhu; P E Lønning; A L Børresen-Dale; P O Brown; D Botstein
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2000-08-17       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  Breast cancer classification and prognosis based on gene expression profiles from a population-based study.

Authors:  Christos Sotiriou; Soek-Ying Neo; Lisa M McShane; Edward L Korn; Philip M Long; Amir Jazaeri; Philippe Martiat; Steve B Fox; Adrian L Harris; Edison T Liu
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2003-08-13       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  A two-gene expression ratio predicts clinical outcome in breast cancer patients treated with tamoxifen.

Authors:  Xiao-Jun Ma; Zuncai Wang; Paula D Ryan; Steven J Isakoff; Anne Barmettler; Andrew Fuller; Beth Muir; Gayatry Mohapatra; Ranelle Salunga; J Todd Tuggle; Yen Tran; Diem Tran; Ana Tassin; Paul Amon; Wilson Wang; Wei Wang; Edward Enright; Kimberly Stecker; Eden Estepa-Sabal; Barbara Smith; Jerry Younger; Ulysses Balis; James Michaelson; Atul Bhan; Karleen Habin; Thomas M Baer; Joan Brugge; Daniel A Haber; Mark G Erlander; Dennis C Sgroi
Journal:  Cancer Cell       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 31.743

6.  A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer.

Authors:  Marc J van de Vijver; Yudong D He; Laura J van't Veer; Hongyue Dai; Augustinus A M Hart; Dorien W Voskuil; George J Schreiber; Johannes L Peterse; Chris Roberts; Matthew J Marton; Mark Parrish; Douwe Atsma; Anke Witteveen; Annuska Glas; Leonie Delahaye; Tony van der Velde; Harry Bartelink; Sjoerd Rodenhuis; Emiel T Rutgers; Stephen H Friend; René Bernards
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2002-12-19       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Revealing targeted therapy for human cancer by gene module maps.

Authors:  David J Wong; Dimitry S A Nuyten; Aviv Regev; Meihong Lin; Adam S Adler; Eran Segal; Marc J van de Vijver; Howard Y Chang
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2008-01-15       Impact factor: 12.701

8.  Gene expression profiling for the prediction of therapeutic response to docetaxel in patients with breast cancer.

Authors:  Jenny C Chang; Eric C Wooten; Anna Tsimelzon; Susan G Hilsenbeck; M Carolina Gutierrez; Richard Elledge; Syed Mohsin; C Kent Osborne; Gary C Chamness; D Craig Allred; Peter O'Connell
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2003-08-02       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Repeated observation of breast tumor subtypes in independent gene expression data sets.

Authors:  Therese Sorlie; Robert Tibshirani; Joel Parker; Trevor Hastie; J S Marron; Andrew Nobel; Shibing Deng; Hilde Johnsen; Robert Pesich; Stephanie Geisler; Janos Demeter; Charles M Perou; Per E Lønning; Patrick O Brown; Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale; David Botstein
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2003-06-26       Impact factor: 12.779

10.  Gene expression signature of fibroblast serum response predicts human cancer progression: similarities between tumors and wounds.

Authors:  Howard Y Chang; Julie B Sneddon; Ash A Alizadeh; Ruchira Sood; Rob B West; Kelli Montgomery; Jen-Tsan Chi; Matt van de Rijn; David Botstein; Patrick O Brown
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2004-01-13       Impact factor: 8.029

View more
  13 in total

1.  Design of a multi-signature ensemble classifier predicting neuroblastoma patients' outcome.

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

2.  Tissue banking in a regional hospital: a promising future concept? First report on fresh frozen tissue banking in a hospital without an integrated institute of pathology.

Authors:  Marco von Strauss und Torney; Ulrich Güller; Farid Rezaeian; Philippe Brosi; Luigi Terracciano; Markus Zuber
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 3.  A mouse mammary gland involution mRNA signature identifies biological pathways potentially associated with breast cancer metastasis.

Authors:  Torsten Stein; Nathan Salomonis; Dimitry S A Nuyten; Marc J van de Vijver; Barry A Gusterson
Journal:  J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia       Date:  2009-04-30       Impact factor: 2.673

4.  Estradiol, TGF-β1 and hypoxia promote breast cancer stemness and EMT-mediated breast cancer migration.

Authors:  Seong-Joon Park; Joong-Gook Kim; Nam Deuk Kim; Kwangmo Yang; Jae Woong Shim; Kyu Heo
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2016-01-15       Impact factor: 2.967

5.  Logic Learning Machine creates explicit and stable rules stratifying neuroblastoma patients.

Authors:  Davide Cangelosi; Fabiola Blengio; Rogier Versteeg; Angelika Eggert; Alberto Garaventa; Claudio Gambini; Massimo Conte; Alessandra Eva; Marco Muselli; Luigi Varesio
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2013-04-22       Impact factor: 3.169

6.  RNA-Seq and Network Analysis Revealed Interacting Pathways in TGF-β-Treated Lung Cancer Cell Lines.

Authors:  Yan Li; Omid Rouhi; Hankui Chen; Rolando Ramirez; Jeffrey A Borgia; Youping Deng
Journal:  Cancer Inform       Date:  2015-04-01

7.  Integrated molecular pathway analysis informs a synergistic combination therapy targeting PTEN/PI3K and EGFR pathways for basal-like breast cancer.

Authors:  Qing-Bai She; Sofia K Gruvberger-Saal; Matthew Maurer; Yilun Chen; Mervi Jumppanen; Tao Su; Meaghan Dendy; Ying-Ka Ingar Lau; Lorenzo Memeo; Hugo M Horlings; Marc J van de Vijver; Jorma Isola; Hanina Hibshoosh; Neal Rosen; Ramon Parsons; Lao H Saal
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2016-08-02       Impact factor: 4.430

8.  Gene expression profile analysis of t1 and t2 breast cancer reveals different activation pathways.

Authors:  Margit L H Riis; Xi Zhao; Fateme Kaveh; Hilde S Vollan; Anne-Jorunn Nesbakken; Hiroko K Solvang; Torben Lüders; Ida R K Bukholm; Vessela N Kristensen
Journal:  ISRN Oncol       Date:  2013-02-28

9.  Analytical validation of the PAM50-based Prosigna Breast Cancer Prognostic Gene Signature Assay and nCounter Analysis System using formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded breast tumor specimens.

Authors:  Torsten Nielsen; Brett Wallden; Carl Schaper; Sean Ferree; Shuzhen Liu; Dongxia Gao; Garrett Barry; Naeem Dowidar; Malini Maysuria; James Storhoff
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2014-03-13       Impact factor: 4.430

10.  Systematic assessment of prognostic gene signatures for breast cancer shows distinct influence of time and ER status.

Authors:  Xi Zhao; Einar Andreas Rødland; Therese Sørlie; Hans Kristian Moen Vollan; Hege G Russnes; Vessela N Kristensen; Ole Christian Lingjærde; Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2014-03-19       Impact factor: 4.430

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.