PURPOSE: Published multigene classifiers suggesting outcome prediction for patients with stage UICC II colon cancer have not been translated into a clinical application so far. Therefore, we aimed at validating own and published gene expression signatures employing methods which enable their reconstruction in routine diagnostic specimens. METHODS: Immunohistochemistry was applied to 68 stage UICC II colon cancers to determine the protein expression of previously published prognostic classifier genes (CDH17, LAT, CA2, EMR3, and TNFRSF11A). RNA from macrodissected tumor samples from 53 of these 68 patients was profiled on Affymetrix GeneChips (HG-U133 Plus 2.0). Prognostic signatures were generated by "nearest shrunken centroids" with cross-validation. Previously published gene signatures were applied to our data set using "global tests" and leave-one-out cross-validation RESULTS: Correlation of protein expression with clinical outcome failed to separate patients with disease-free follow-up (group DF) and relapse (group R). Although gene expression profiling allowed the identification of differentially expressed genes ("DF" vs. "R"), a stable classification/prognosis signature was not discernable. Furthermore, the application of previously published gene signatures to our data was unable to predict clinical outcome (prediction rate 75.5% and 64.2%; n.s.). T-stage was the only independent prognostic factor for relapse with established clinical and pathological parameters including microsatellite status (multivariate analysis). CONCLUSIONS: Our protein and gene expression analyses do not support application of molecular classifiers for prediction of clinical outcome in current routine diagnostic as a basis for patient-orientated therapy in stage UICC II colon cancer. Further studies are needed to develop prognosis signatures applicable in patient care.
PURPOSE: Published multigene classifiers suggesting outcome prediction for patients with stage UICC II colon cancer have not been translated into a clinical application so far. Therefore, we aimed at validating own and published gene expression signatures employing methods which enable their reconstruction in routine diagnostic specimens. METHODS: Immunohistochemistry was applied to 68 stage UICC II colon cancers to determine the protein expression of previously published prognostic classifier genes (CDH17, LAT, CA2, EMR3, and TNFRSF11A). RNA from macrodissected tumor samples from 53 of these 68 patients was profiled on Affymetrix GeneChips (HG-U133 Plus 2.0). Prognostic signatures were generated by "nearest shrunken centroids" with cross-validation. Previously published gene signatures were applied to our data set using "global tests" and leave-one-out cross-validation RESULTS: Correlation of protein expression with clinical outcome failed to separate patients with disease-free follow-up (group DF) and relapse (group R). Although gene expression profiling allowed the identification of differentially expressed genes ("DF" vs. "R"), a stable classification/prognosis signature was not discernable. Furthermore, the application of previously published gene signatures to our data was unable to predict clinical outcome (prediction rate 75.5% and 64.2%; n.s.). T-stage was the only independent prognostic factor for relapse with established clinical and pathological parameters including microsatellite status (multivariate analysis). CONCLUSIONS: Our protein and gene expression analyses do not support application of molecular classifiers for prediction of clinical outcome in current routine diagnostic as a basis for patient-orientated therapy in stage UICC II colon cancer. Further studies are needed to develop prognosis signatures applicable in patient care.
Authors: Yu-Hsin Lin; Jan Friederichs; Michael A Black; Jörg Mages; Robert Rosenberg; Parry J Guilford; Vicky Phillips; Mark Thompson-Fawcett; Nikola Kasabov; Tumi Toro; Arend E Merrie; Andre van Rij; Han-Seung Yoon; John L McCall; Jörg Rüdiger Siewert; Bernhard Holzmann; Anthony E Reeve Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2007-01-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: John P A Ioannidis; David B Allison; Catherine A Ball; Issa Coulibaly; Xiangqin Cui; Aedín C Culhane; Mario Falchi; Cesare Furlanello; Laurence Game; Giuseppe Jurman; Jon Mangion; Tapan Mehta; Michael Nitzberg; Grier P Page; Enrico Petretto; Vera van Noort Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2008-01-28 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: U Alon; N Barkai; D A Notterman; K Gish; S Ybarra; D Mack; A J Levine Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 1999-06-08 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: A Bhattacharjee; W G Richards; J Staunton; C Li; S Monti; P Vasa; C Ladd; J Beheshti; R Bueno; M Gillette; M Loda; G Weber; E J Mark; E S Lander; W Wong; B E Johnson; T R Golub; D J Sugarbaker; M Meyerson Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2001-11-13 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Jill E Larsen; Sandra J Pavey; Linda H Passmore; Rayleen V Bowman; Nicholas K Hayward; Kwun M Fong Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2007-05-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Laura Kummola; Jonna M Hämäläinen; Jyrki Kivelä; Antti J Kivelä; Juha Saarnio; Tuomo Karttunen; Seppo Parkkila Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2005-04-18 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Piero Dalerba; Debashis Sahoo; Soonmyung Paik; Xiangqian Guo; Greg Yothers; Nan Song; Nate Wilcox-Fogel; Erna Forgó; Pradeep S Rajendran; Stephen P Miranda; Shigeo Hisamori; Jacqueline Hutchison; Tomer Kalisky; Dalong Qian; Norman Wolmark; George A Fisher; Matt van de Rijn; Michael F Clarke Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-01-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Vera Kloten; Michael Rose; Sophie Kaspar; Saskia von Stillfried; Ruth Knüchel; Edgar Dahl Journal: Epigenetics Date: 2014-08-04 Impact factor: 4.528
Authors: Eva Budinska; Vlad Popovici; Sabine Tejpar; Giovanni D'Ario; Nicolas Lapique; Katarzyna Otylia Sikora; Antonio Fabio Di Narzo; Pu Yan; John Graeme Hodgson; Scott Weinrich; Fred Bosman; Arnaud Roth; Mauro Delorenzi Journal: J Pathol Date: 2013-07-08 Impact factor: 7.996