Yijun Sun1, Steve Goodison. 1. Interdisciplinary Center for Biotechnology Research, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32009, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The derivation of molecular signatures indicative of disease status and predictive of subsequent behavior could facilitate the optimal choice of treatment for prostate cancer patients. METHODS: In this study, we conducted a computational analysis of gene expression profile data obtained from 79 cases, 39 of which were classified as having disease recurrence, to investigate whether advanced computational algorithms can derive more accurate prognostic signatures for prostate cancer. RESULTS: At the 90% sensitivity level, a newly derived prognostic genetic signature achieved 85% specificity. This is the first reported genetic signature to outperform a clinically used postoperative nomogram. Furthermore, a hybrid prognostic signature derived by combination of the nomogram and gene expression data significantly outperformed both genetic and clinical signatures, and achieved a specificity of 95%. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates the feasibility of utilizing gene expression information for highly accurate prostate cancer prognosis beyond the current clinical systems, and shows that more advanced computational modeling of tissue-derived microarray data is warranted before clinical application of molecular signatures is considered. (c) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
BACKGROUND: The derivation of molecular signatures indicative of disease status and predictive of subsequent behavior could facilitate the optimal choice of treatment for prostate cancerpatients. METHODS: In this study, we conducted a computational analysis of gene expression profile data obtained from 79 cases, 39 of which were classified as having disease recurrence, to investigate whether advanced computational algorithms can derive more accurate prognostic signatures for prostate cancer. RESULTS: At the 90% sensitivity level, a newly derived prognostic genetic signature achieved 85% specificity. This is the first reported genetic signature to outperform a clinically used postoperative nomogram. Furthermore, a hybrid prognostic signature derived by combination of the nomogram and gene expression data significantly outperformed both genetic and clinical signatures, and achieved a specificity of 95%. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates the feasibility of utilizing gene expression information for highly accurate prostate cancer prognosis beyond the current clinical systems, and shows that more advanced computational modeling of tissue-derived microarray data is warranted before clinical application of molecular signatures is considered. (c) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: Andrew J Stephenson; Alex Smith; Michael W Kattan; Jaya Satagopan; Victor E Reuter; Peter T Scardino; William L Gerald Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-07-15 Impact factor: 6.860
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
Authors: Xiansi Zhao; Robert E Ayer; Shannon L Davis; Sarah J Ames; Brian Florence; Cyrus Torchinsky; James S Liou; Ling Shen; Remco A Spanjaard Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2005-03-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Steve Goodison; Jing Yuan; Derek Sloan; Ryung Kim; Cheng Li; Nicholas C Popescu; Virginia Urquidi Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2005-07-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Dinesh Singh; Phillip G Febbo; Kenneth Ross; Donald G Jackson; Judith Manola; Christine Ladd; Pablo Tamayo; Andrew A Renshaw; Anthony V D'Amico; Jerome P Richie; Eric S Lander; Massimo Loda; Philip W Kantoff; Todd R Golub; William R Sellers Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Eva LaTulippe; Jaya Satagopan; Alex Smith; Howard Scher; Peter Scardino; Victor Reuter; William L Gerald Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2002-08-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Chellappagounder Thangavel; Ettickan Boopathi; Yi Liu; Alex Haber; Adam Ertel; Anshul Bhardwaj; Sankar Addya; Noelle Williams; Stephen J Ciment; Paolo Cotzia; Jeffry L Dean; Adam Snook; Chris McNair; Matt Price; James R Hernandez; Shuang G Zhao; Ruth Birbe; James B McCarthy; Eva A Turley; Kenneth J Pienta; Felix Y Feng; Adam P Dicker; Karen E Knudsen; Robert B Den Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2016-12-06 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Julia L-Y Chen; Iñigo Espinosa; Albert Y Lin; Olivia Y-W Liao; Matt van de Rijn; Robert B West Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2013-06-26 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Akash K Kaushik; Shaiju K Vareed; Sumanta Basu; Vasanta Putluri; Nagireddy Putluri; Katrin Panzitt; Christine A Brennan; Arul M Chinnaiyan; Ismael A Vergara; Nicholas Erho; Nancy L Weigel; Nicholas Mitsiades; Ali Shojaie; Ganesh Palapattu; George Michailidis; Arun Sreekumar Journal: J Proteome Res Date: 2013-12-31 Impact factor: 4.466
Authors: Zhenyu Jia; Yipeng Wang; Anne Sawyers; Huazhen Yao; Farahnaz Rahmatpanah; Xiao-Qin Xia; Qiang Xu; Rebecca Pio; Tolga Turan; James A Koziol; Steve Goodison; Philip Carpenter; Jessica Wang-Rodriguez; Anne Simoneau; Frank Meyskens; Manuel Sutton; Waldemar Lernhardt; Thomas Beach; Joseph Monforte; Michael McClelland; Dan Mercola Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2011-04-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Na Yang; Shun Feng; Kerby Shedden; Xiaolei Xie; Yashu Liu; Charles J Rosser; David M Lubman; Steven Goodison Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2011-04-01 Impact factor: 12.531