BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Genomic instability, as reflected in specific chromosomal aneuploidies and variation in the nuclear DNA content, is a defining feature of human carcinomas. It is solidly established that the degree of genomic instability influences clinical outcome. We have recently identified a 12-gene expression signature that discerned genomically stable from unstable breast carcinomas. This gene expression signature was also useful to predict, with high accuracy, the clinical course in independent multiple published breast cancer cohorts. From a biological point of view, this result confirmed the central role of genomic instability for a tumor's ability to adapt to external challenges and selective pressure, and hence for continued survival fitness. This prompted us to investigate whether this genomic instability signature could also predict clinical outcome in other cancer types of epithelial origin, including colorectal tumors, non-small cell lung carcinomas, and ovarian cancer. RESULTS: The results show that the gene expression signature that defines genomic instability and poor outcome in breast cancer contributes significantly more accurate (p<0.05 compared with random prediction) prognostic information in multiple cancer types independent of established clinical parameters. The 12-gene genomic instability signature stratified patients into high- and low-risk groups with distinct postoperative survival in three non-small cell lung cancer cohorts (n=637) in Kaplan-Meier analyses (log-rank p<0.05). It predicted recurrence in colon cancer patients (n=92) with an overall accuracy greater than 69% (p=0.04) in cross-cohort validation. It quantified relapse-free survival in ovarian cancer (n=124; log-rank p<0.05). Functional pathway analysis revealed interactions between the 12 signature genes and well-known cancer hallmarks. CONCLUSION: The degree of genomic instability has diagnostic and prognostic implications. It is tempting to speculate that pursuing genomic instability therapeutically could provide entry points for a target that is unique to cancer cells.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Genomic instability, as reflected in specific chromosomal aneuploidies and variation in the nuclear DNA content, is a defining feature of humancarcinomas. It is solidly established that the degree of genomic instability influences clinical outcome. We have recently identified a 12-gene expression signature that discerned genomically stable from unstable breast carcinomas. This gene expression signature was also useful to predict, with high accuracy, the clinical course in independent multiple published breast cancer cohorts. From a biological point of view, this result confirmed the central role of genomic instability for a tumor's ability to adapt to external challenges and selective pressure, and hence for continued survival fitness. This prompted us to investigate whether this genomic instability signature could also predict clinical outcome in other cancer types of epithelial origin, including colorectal tumors, non-small cell lung carcinomas, and ovarian cancer. RESULTS: The results show that the gene expression signature that defines genomic instability and poor outcome in breast cancer contributes significantly more accurate (p<0.05 compared with random prediction) prognostic information in multiple cancer types independent of established clinical parameters. The 12-gene genomic instability signature stratified patients into high- and low-risk groups with distinct postoperative survival in three non-small cell lung cancer cohorts (n=637) in Kaplan-Meier analyses (log-rank p<0.05). It predicted recurrence in colon cancerpatients (n=92) with an overall accuracy greater than 69% (p=0.04) in cross-cohort validation. It quantified relapse-free survival in ovarian cancer (n=124; log-rank p<0.05). Functional pathway analysis revealed interactions between the 12 signature genes and well-known cancer hallmarks. CONCLUSION: The degree of genomic instability has diagnostic and prognostic implications. It is tempting to speculate that pursuing genomic instability therapeutically could provide entry points for a target that is unique to cancer cells.
Authors: Andy J Minn; Gaorav P Gupta; Peter M Siegel; Paula D Bos; Weiping Shu; Dilip D Giri; Agnes Viale; Adam B Olshen; William L Gerald; Joan Massagué Journal: Nature Date: 2005-07-28 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Andrea H Bild; Guang Yao; Jeffrey T Chang; Quanli Wang; Anil Potti; Dawn Chasse; Mary-Beth Joshi; David Harpole; Johnathan M Lancaster; Andrew Berchuck; John A Olson; Jeffrey R Marks; Holly K Dressman; Mike West; Joseph R Nevins Journal: Nature Date: 2005-11-06 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Ulrike Kronenwett; Alexander Ploner; Anders Zetterberg; Jonas Bergh; Per Hall; Gert Auer; Yudi Pawitan Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Philipp G Hemmati; Guillaume Normand; Berlinda Verdoodt; Clarissa von Haefen; Anne Hasenjäger; Dilek Güner; Jana Wendt; Bernd Dörken; Peter T Daniel Journal: Oncogene Date: 2005-06-09 Impact factor: 9.867
Authors: Jen-Tsan Chi; Zhen Wang; Dimitry S A Nuyten; Edwin H Rodriguez; Marci E Schaner; Ali Salim; Yun Wang; Gunnar B Kristensen; Aslaug Helland; Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale; Amato Giaccia; Michael T Longaker; Trevor Hastie; George P Yang; Marc J van de Vijver; Patrick O Brown Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Nicholas McGranahan; Rebecca A Burrell; David Endesfelder; Marco R Novelli; Charles Swanton Journal: EMBO Rep Date: 2012-06-01 Impact factor: 8.807
Authors: Marco Gerling; Kari Nousiainen; Sampsa Hautaniemi; Stefan Krüger; Britta Fritzsche; Nils Homann; Hans-Peter Bruch; Gert Auer; Uwe J Roblick; Thomas Ried; Jens K Habermann Journal: Inflamm Bowel Dis Date: 2013 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.325
Authors: Rebeca Sanz-Pamplona; Antoni Berenguer; David Cordero; Samantha Riccadonna; Xavier Solé; Marta Crous-Bou; Elisabet Guinó; Xavier Sanjuan; Sebastiano Biondo; Antonio Soriano; Giuseppe Jurman; Gabriel Capella; Cesare Furlanello; Victor Moreno Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-11-07 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Françoise Bonnet; Mickael Guedj; Natalie Jones; Sana Sfar; Véronique Brouste; Nabila Elarouci; Guillaume Banneau; Béatrice Orsetti; Charlotte Primois; Christine Tunon de Lara; Marc Debled; Isabelle de Mascarel; Charles Theillet; Nicolas Sévenet; Aurélien de Reynies; Gaëtan MacGrogan; Michel Longy Journal: BMC Med Genomics Date: 2012-11-27 Impact factor: 3.063