BACKGROUND: Assessment of outcome using a single prognostic or predictive marker is the current basis of targeted therapy, but is inherently limited by its simplicity. Multiplexing has provided better classification, but has only been done quantitatively using RNA or DNA. Automated quantitative analysis is a new technology that allows quantitative in situ assessment of protein expression. The authors hypothesized that multiplexed quantitative measurement of ErbB receptor family proteins may allow better prediction of outcome. METHODS: The authors quantitatively assessed the expression of 6 proteins in 4 subcellular compartments in 676 patients using breast carcinoma tissue microarrays. Then using Cox proportional hazards modeling and unsupervised hierarchical clustering, they assessed the prognostic value of the expression singly and multiplexed. RESULTS: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), HER-2, and HER-3 expression were associated with decreased survival. Multivariate analysis showed high HER-2 and HER-3 expression maintained independence as prognostic markers. Hierarchical clustering of expression data defined a small class enriched for HER-2 expression with 40% 10-year survival, compared with 55% using conventional methods. Clustering also revealed a similarly poor-prognostic subgroup coexpressing EGFR and HER-3 (but low for estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER-2) with a 42% 10-year survival. CONCLUSIONS: This work shows that the combined analysis of protein expression improved prognostic classification, and that multiplexed models were superior to any single-marker-based method for prediction of 10-year survival. These methods illustrate a protein-based, multiplexed approach that could more accurately identify patients for targeted therapies. (c) 2009 American Cancer Society.
BACKGROUND: Assessment of outcome using a single prognostic or predictive marker is the current basis of targeted therapy, but is inherently limited by its simplicity. Multiplexing has provided better classification, but has only been done quantitatively using RNA or DNA. Automated quantitative analysis is a new technology that allows quantitative in situ assessment of protein expression. The authors hypothesized that multiplexed quantitative measurement of ErbB receptor family proteins may allow better prediction of outcome. METHODS: The authors quantitatively assessed the expression of 6 proteins in 4 subcellular compartments in 676 patients using breast carcinoma tissue microarrays. Then using Cox proportional hazards modeling and unsupervised hierarchical clustering, they assessed the prognostic value of the expression singly and multiplexed. RESULTS:Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), HER-2, and HER-3 expression were associated with decreased survival. Multivariate analysis showed high HER-2 and HER-3 expression maintained independence as prognostic markers. Hierarchical clustering of expression data defined a small class enriched for HER-2 expression with 40% 10-year survival, compared with 55% using conventional methods. Clustering also revealed a similarly poor-prognostic subgroup coexpressing EGFR and HER-3 (but low for estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER-2) with a 42% 10-year survival. CONCLUSIONS: This work shows that the combined analysis of protein expression improved prognostic classification, and that multiplexed models were superior to any single-marker-based method for prediction of 10-year survival. These methods illustrate a protein-based, multiplexed approach that could more accurately identify patients for targeted therapies. (c) 2009 American Cancer Society.
Authors: Sam M Wiseman; Nikita Makretsov; Torsten O Nielsen; Blake Gilks; Erika Yorida; Maggie Cheang; Dmitry Turbin; Karen Gelmon; David G Huntsman Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-05-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Aaron J Berger; Robert L Camp; Kyle A Divito; Harriet M Kluger; Ruth Halaban; David L Rimm Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2004-12-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: J Kononen; L Bubendorf; A Kallioniemi; M Bärlund; P Schraml; S Leighton; J Torhorst; M J Mihatsch; G Sauter; O P Kallioniemi Journal: Nat Med Date: 1998-07 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Mark A Rubin; Maciej P Zerkowski; Robert L Camp; Rainer Kuefer; Matthias D Hofer; Arul M Chinnaiyan; David L Rimm Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: A Travis; S E Pinder; J F Robertson; J A Bell; P Wencyk; W J Gullick; R I Nicholson; D N Poller; R W Blamey; C W Elston; I O Ellis Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 1996-07 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: D M Abd El-Rehim; S E Pinder; C E Paish; J A Bell; R S Rampaul; R W Blamey; J F R Robertson; R I Nicholson; I O Ellis Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2004-10-18 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Amy R Peck; Agnieszka K Witkiewicz; Chengbao Liu; Ginger A Stringer; Alexander C Klimowicz; Edward Pequignot; Boris Freydin; Thai H Tran; Ning Yang; Anne L Rosenberg; Jeffrey A Hooke; Albert J Kovatich; Marja T Nevalainen; Craig D Shriver; Terry Hyslop; Guido Sauter; David L Rimm; Anthony M Magliocco; Hallgeir Rui Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-05-16 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Maria T Baquero; Jason A Hanna; Veronique Neumeister; Huan Cheng; Annette M Molinaro; Lyndsay N Harris; David L Rimm Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-02-22 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Amanda F Ghilardi; Elham Yaaghubi; Renan B Ferreira; Mary E Law; Yinuo Yang; Bradley J Davis; Christopher M Schilson; Ion Ghiviriga; Adrian E Roitberg; Brian K Law; Ronald K Castellano Journal: ChemMedChem Date: 2022-05-23 Impact factor: 3.540
Authors: Fabio Parisi; Ana M Gonzalez; Yasmine Nadler; Robert L Camp; David L Rimm; Harriet M Kluger; Yuval Kluger Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2010-09-01 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Seema Agarwal; Frank B Gertler; Michele Balsamo; John S Condeelis; Robert L Camp; Xiaonan Xue; Juan Lin; Thomas E Rohan; David L Rimm Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2012-09-12 Impact factor: 6.466