BACKGROUND: More accurate prognostic assessment of patients with neuroblastoma is required to better inform the choice of risk-related therapy. The aim of this study is to develop and validate a gene-expression signature to improve outcome prediction. METHODS: 59 genes were selected using an innovative data-mining strategy, and were profiled in the largest neuroblastoma patient series (n=579) to date using real-time quantitative PCR starting from only 20 ng of RNA. A multigene-expression signature was built using 30 training samples, tested on 313 test samples, and subsequently validated in a blind study on an independent set of 236 tumours. FINDINGS: The signature has a performance, sensitivity, and specificity of 85.4% (95% CI 77.7-93.2), 84.4% (66.5-94.1), and 86.5% (81.1-90.6), respectively, to predict patient outcome. Multivariate analysis indicates that the signature is a significant independent predictor of overall survival and progression-free survival after controlling for currently used risk factors: patients with high molecular risk have a higher risk of death from disease and higher risk of relapse or progression than patients with low molecular risk (odds ratio 19.32 [95% CI 6.50-57.43] and 3.96 [1.97-7.97] for overall survival and progression-free survival, respectively, both p<0.0001). Patients at an increased risk of an adverse outcome can also be identified in the current treatment groups, showing the potential of this signature for improved clinical management. These results were confirmed in the validation study, in which the signature was also independently statistically significant in a model adjusted for MYCN status, age, International Neuroblastoma Staging System stage, ploidy, International Neuroblastoma Pathology Classification grade of differentiation, and mitosis karyorrhexis index (odds ratios between 4.81 and 10.53 depending on the model for overall survival and 3.68 [95% CI 2.01-6.71] for progression-free survival). INTERPRETATION: The 59-gene expression signature is an accurate predictor of outcome in patients with neuroblastoma. The signature is an independent risk predictor, identifying patients with an increased risk of poor outcome in the current clinical-risk groups. The method and signature is suitable for routine laboratory testing, and should be evaluated in prospective studies. FUNDING: The Belgian Foundation Against Cancer, the Children Cancer Fund Ghent, the Belgian Society of Paediatric Haematology and Oncology, the Belgian Kid's Fund and the Fondation Nuovo-Soldati (JV), the Fund for Scientific Research Flanders (KDP, JH), the Fund for Scientific Research Flanders, the Institute for the Promotion of Innovation by Science and Technology in Flanders, Strategisch basisonderzoek, the Fondation Fournier Majoie pour l'Innovation, the Instituto Carlos III, the Italian Neuroblastoma Foundation, the European Community under the FP6, and the Belgian programme of Interuniversity Poles of Attraction.
BACKGROUND: More accurate prognostic assessment of patients with neuroblastoma is required to better inform the choice of risk-related therapy. The aim of this study is to develop and validate a gene-expression signature to improve outcome prediction. METHODS: 59 genes were selected using an innovative data-mining strategy, and were profiled in the largest neuroblastomapatient series (n=579) to date using real-time quantitative PCR starting from only 20 ng of RNA. A multigene-expression signature was built using 30 training samples, tested on 313 test samples, and subsequently validated in a blind study on an independent set of 236 tumours. FINDINGS: The signature has a performance, sensitivity, and specificity of 85.4% (95% CI 77.7-93.2), 84.4% (66.5-94.1), and 86.5% (81.1-90.6), respectively, to predict patient outcome. Multivariate analysis indicates that the signature is a significant independent predictor of overall survival and progression-free survival after controlling for currently used risk factors: patients with high molecular risk have a higher risk of death from disease and higher risk of relapse or progression than patients with low molecular risk (odds ratio 19.32 [95% CI 6.50-57.43] and 3.96 [1.97-7.97] for overall survival and progression-free survival, respectively, both p<0.0001). Patients at an increased risk of an adverse outcome can also be identified in the current treatment groups, showing the potential of this signature for improved clinical management. These results were confirmed in the validation study, in which the signature was also independently statistically significant in a model adjusted for MYCN status, age, International Neuroblastoma Staging System stage, ploidy, International Neuroblastoma Pathology Classification grade of differentiation, and mitosis karyorrhexis index (odds ratios between 4.81 and 10.53 depending on the model for overall survival and 3.68 [95% CI 2.01-6.71] for progression-free survival). INTERPRETATION: The 59-gene expression signature is an accurate predictor of outcome in patients with neuroblastoma. The signature is an independent risk predictor, identifying patients with an increased risk of poor outcome in the current clinical-risk groups. The method and signature is suitable for routine laboratory testing, and should be evaluated in prospective studies. FUNDING: The Belgian Foundation Against Cancer, the ChildrenCancer Fund Ghent, the Belgian Society of Paediatric Haematology and Oncology, the Belgian Kid's Fund and the Fondation Nuovo-Soldati (JV), the Fund for Scientific Research Flanders (KDP, JH), the Fund for Scientific Research Flanders, the Institute for the Promotion of Innovation by Science and Technology in Flanders, Strategisch basisonderzoek, the Fondation Fournier Majoie pour l'Innovation, the Instituto Carlos III, the Italian Neuroblastoma Foundation, the European Community under the FP6, and the Belgian programme of Interuniversity Poles of Attraction.
Authors: Kai-Oliver Henrich; Matthias Fischer; Daniel Mertens; Axel Benner; Ruprecht Wiedemeyer; Benedikt Brors; André Oberthuer; Frank Berthold; Jun Stephen Wei; Javed Khan; Manfred Schwab; Frank Westermann Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2006-01-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Yixin Wang; Jan G M Klijn; Yi Zhang; Anieta M Sieuwerts; Maxime P Look; Fei Yang; Dmitri Talantov; Mieke Timmermans; Marion E Meijer-van Gelder; Jack Yu; Tim Jatkoe; Els M J J Berns; David Atkins; John A Foekens Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 Feb 19-25 Impact factor: 79.321
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: J A Kohler; H Rubie; V Castel; K Beiske; K Holmes; C Gambini; F Casale; C Munzer; G Erminio; S Parodi; S Navarro; C Marquez; M Peuchmaur; C Cullinane; P Brock; D Valteau-Couanet; A Garaventa; R Haupt Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2013-07-29 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Bernd Berwanger; Oliver Hartmann; Eckhard Bergmann; Sandra Bernard; Dirk Nielsen; Michael Krause; Ali Kartal; Daniel Flynn; Ruprecht Wiedemeyer; Manfred Schwab; Helmut Schäfer; Holger Christiansen; Martin Eilers Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Alexander Schramm; Johannes H Schulte; Ludger Klein-Hitpass; Werner Havers; Hauke Sieverts; Bernd Berwanger; Holger Christiansen; Patrick Warnat; Benedikt Brors; Jürgen Eils; Roland Eils; Angelika Eggert Journal: Oncogene Date: 2005-11-24 Impact factor: 9.867
Authors: L McArdle; M McDermott; R Purcell; D Grehan; A O'Meara; F Breatnach; D Catchpoole; A C Culhane; I Jeffery; W M Gallagher; R L Stallings Journal: Carcinogenesis Date: 2004-04-16 Impact factor: 4.944
Authors: Jennifer C Kasemeier-Kulesa; Santiago Schnell; Thomas Woolley; Jennifer A Spengler; Jason A Morrison; Mary C McKinney; Irina Pushel; Lauren A Wolfe; Paul M Kulesa Journal: Biophys Chem Date: 2018-04-30 Impact factor: 2.352
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
Authors: Thomas P Stricker; Andres Morales La Madrid; Alexandre Chlenski; Lisa Guerrero; Helen R Salwen; Yasmin Gosiengfiao; Elizabeth J Perlman; Wayne Furman; Armita Bahrami; Jason M Shohet; Peter E Zage; M John Hicks; Hiroyuki Shimada; Rie Suganuma; Julie R Park; Sara So; Wendy B London; Peter Pytel; Kirsteen H Maclean; Susan L Cohn Journal: Mol Oncol Date: 2014-01-31 Impact factor: 6.603
Authors: Linda J Valentijn; Jan Koster; Franciska Haneveld; Rachida Ait Aissa; Peter van Sluis; Marloes E C Broekmans; Jan J Molenaar; Johan van Nes; Rogier Versteeg Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2012-10-22 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Derek M Murphy; Patrick G Buckley; Kenneth Bryan; Sudipto Das; Leah Alcock; Niamh H Foley; Suzanne Prenter; Isabella Bray; Karen M Watters; Desmond Higgins; Raymond L Stallings Journal: PLoS One Date: 2009-12-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Joëlle Vermeulen; Stefaan Derveaux; Steve Lefever; Els De Smet; Katleen De Preter; Nurten Yigit; Anne De Paepe; Filip Pattyn; Frank Speleman; Jo Vandesompele Journal: BMC Res Notes Date: 2009-11-25
Authors: Nadine Van Roy; Katleen De Preter; Jasmien Hoebeeck; Tom Van Maerken; Filip Pattyn; Pieter Mestdagh; Joëlle Vermeulen; Jo Vandesompele; Frank Speleman Journal: Genome Med Date: 2009-07-27 Impact factor: 11.117