PURPOSE: To determine if gene expression signature of invasive oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) can subclassify OSCC based on survival. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We analyzed the expression of 131 genes in 119 OSCC, 35 normal, and 17 dysplastic mucosa to identify cluster-defined subgroups. Multivariate Cox regression was used to estimate the association between gene expression and survival. By stepwise Cox regression, the top predictive models of OSCC-specific survival were determined and compared by receiver operating characteristic analysis. RESULTS: The 3-year overall mean+/-SE survival for a cluster of 45 OSCC patients was 38.7+/-0.09% compared with 69.1+/-0.08% for the remaining patients. Multivariate analysis adjusted for age, sex, and stage showed that the 45 OSCC patient cluster had worse overall and OSCC-specific survival (hazard ratio, 3.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.66-6.58 and hazard ratio, 5.43; 95% confidence interval, 2.32-12.73, respectively). Stepwise Cox regression on the 131 probe sets revealed that a model with a term for LAMC2 (laminin gamma2) gene expression best identified patients with worst OSCC-specific survival. We fit a Cox model with a term for a principal component analysis-derived risk score marker and two other models that combined stage with either LAMC2 or PCA. The area under the curve for models combining stage with either LAMC2 or PCA was 0.80 or 0.82, respectively, compared with 0.70 for stage alone (P=0.013 and 0.008, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Gene expression and stage combined predict survival of OSCC patients better than stage alone.
PURPOSE: To determine if gene expression signature of invasive oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) can subclassify OSCC based on survival. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We analyzed the expression of 131 genes in 119 OSCC, 35 normal, and 17 dysplastic mucosa to identify cluster-defined subgroups. Multivariate Cox regression was used to estimate the association between gene expression and survival. By stepwise Cox regression, the top predictive models of OSCC-specific survival were determined and compared by receiver operating characteristic analysis. RESULTS: The 3-year overall mean+/-SE survival for a cluster of 45 OSCC patients was 38.7+/-0.09% compared with 69.1+/-0.08% for the remaining patients. Multivariate analysis adjusted for age, sex, and stage showed that the 45 OSCC patient cluster had worse overall and OSCC-specific survival (hazard ratio, 3.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.66-6.58 and hazard ratio, 5.43; 95% confidence interval, 2.32-12.73, respectively). Stepwise Cox regression on the 131 probe sets revealed that a model with a term for LAMC2 (laminin gamma2) gene expression best identified patients with worst OSCC-specific survival. We fit a Cox model with a term for a principal component analysis-derived risk score marker and two other models that combined stage with either LAMC2 or PCA. The area under the curve for models combining stage with either LAMC2 or PCA was 0.80 or 0.82, respectively, compared with 0.70 for stage alone (P=0.013 and 0.008, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Gene expression and stage combined predict survival of OSCC patients better than stage alone.
Authors: D P Gearing; M R Comeau; D J Friend; S D Gimpel; C J Thut; J McGourty; K K Brasher; J A King; S Gillis; B Mosley Journal: Science Date: 1992-03-13 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Gregory T Wolf; Susan Gross Fisher; Waun Ki Hong; Robert Hillman; Monica Spaulding; George E Laramore; James W Endicott; Kenneth McClatchey; William G Henderson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1991-06-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Eduardo Méndez; Chun Cheng; D Gregory Farwell; Sherianne Ricks; S Nicholas Agoff; Neal D Futran; Ernest A Weymuller; Nicole C Maronian; Lue Ping Zhao; Chu Chen Journal: Cancer Date: 2002-10-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Christine H Chung; Joel S Parker; Gamze Karaca; Junyuan Wu; William K Funkhouser; Dominic Moore; Dale Butterfoss; Dong Xiang; Adam Zanation; Xiaoying Yin; William W Shockley; Mark C Weissler; Lynn G Dressler; Carol G Shores; Wendell G Yarbrough; Charles M Perou Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Matthew A Ginos; Grier P Page; Bryan S Michalowicz; Ketan J Patel; Sonja E Volker; Stefan E Pambuccian; Frank G Ondrey; George L Adams; Patrick M Gaffney Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2004-01-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: H Pedersen; N Brünner; D Francis; K Osterlind; E Rønne; H H Hansen; K Danø; J Grøndahl-Hansen Journal: Cancer Res Date: 1994-09-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Marni Stott-Miller; John R Houck; Pawadee Lohavanichbutr; Eduardo Méndez; Melissa P Upton; Neal D Futran; Stephen M Schwartz; Chu Chen Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2011-09-29 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Chang Xu; Yan Liu; Pei Wang; Wenhong Fan; Tessa C Rue; Melissa P Upton; John R Houck; Pawadee Lohavanichbutr; David R Doody; Neal D Futran; Lue Ping Zhao; Stephen M Schwartz; Chu Chen; Eduardo Méndez Journal: Mol Cancer Date: 2010-06-11 Impact factor: 27.401
Authors: Pawadee Lohavanichbutr; Eduardo Méndez; F Christopher Holsinger; Tessa C Rue; Yuzheng Zhang; John Houck; Melissa P Upton; Neal Futran; Stephen M Schwartz; Pei Wang; Chu Chen Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2013-01-14 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: L J Melchers; M J A M Clausen; M F Mastik; L Slagter-Menkema; J E van der Wal; G B A Wisman; J L N Roodenburg; E Schuuring Journal: Epigenetics Date: 2015 Impact factor: 4.528