| Literature DB >> 22140552 |
Lee H Chen1, Wen-Hung Kuo, Mong-Hsun Tsai, Pei-Chun Chen, Chuhsing K Hsiao, Eric Y Chuang, Li-Yun Chang, Fon-Jou Hsieh, Liang-Chuan Lai, King-Jen Chang.
Abstract
Discrepancies in the prognosis of triple negative breast cancer exist between Caucasian and Asian populations. Yet, the gene signature of triple negative breast cancer specifically for Asians has not become available. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to construct a prediction model for recurrence of triple negative breast cancer in Taiwanese patients. Whole genome expression profiling of breast cancers from 185 patients in Taiwan from 1995 to 2008 was performed, and the results were compared to the previously published literature to detect differences between Asian and Western patients. Pathway analysis and Cox proportional hazard models were applied to construct a prediction model for the recurrence of triple negative breast cancer. Hierarchical cluster analysis showed that triple negative breast cancers from different races were in separate sub-clusters but grouped in a bigger cluster. Two pathways, cAMP-mediated signaling and ephrin receptor signaling, were significantly associated with the recurrence of triple negative breast cancer. After using stepwise model selection from the combination of the initial filtered genes, we developed a prediction model based on the genes SLC22A23, PRKAG3, DPEP3, MORC2, GRB7, and FAM43A. The model had 91.7% accuracy, 81.8% sensitivity, and 94.6% specificity under leave-one-out support vector regression. In this study, we identified pathways related to triple negative breast cancer and developed a model to predict its recurrence. These results could be used for assisting with clinical prognosis and warrant further investigation into the possibility of targeted therapy of triple negative breast cancer in Taiwanese patients.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 22140552 PMCID: PMC3226667 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0028222
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Summary statistics for patient profile (n = 185).
| Clinical characteristics | Sample size (n) | Percentage | Sample size of TNBC (n) | Percentage of TNBC |
| Histological Types | ||||
| Luminal A | 49 | 26% | ||
| Luminal B | 31 | 17% | ||
| HER2 | 35 | 19% | ||
| Triple negative | 51 | 28% | ||
| Others | 19 | 10% | ||
| Grade | ||||
| Grade 1 | 24 | 13% | 0 | 0% |
| Grade 2 | 77 | 42% | 15 | 29% |
| Grade 3 | 71 | 38% | 32 | 63% |
| Missing data | 13 | 7% | 4 | 8% |
| Stage | ||||
| Stage I | 33 | 18% | 12 | 24% |
| Stage IIA | 42 | 23% | 18 | 35% |
| Stage IIB | 42 | 23% | 7 | 14% |
| Stage IIIA | 29 | 16% | 4 | 8% |
| Stage IIIB | 3 | 2% | 1 | 2% |
| Stage IIIC | 26 | 14% | 6 | 12% |
| Stage IV | 10 | 5% | 3 | 6% |
| Recurrence | ||||
| Yes | 40 | 22% | 14 | 27% |
| No | 145 | 78% | 37 | 73% |
Figure 1Gene expression profiles of Triple negative breast cancer differ between Caucasian and Asian populations in Taiwan.
A. Hierarchical clustering of breast cancer samples from van de Vijver's study (n = 295) and this study (n = 185). Basal-like breast cancer samples in van de Vijver's study are marked with blue bars and those in this study are marked with yellow bars. The criterion of differentially expressed genes (n = 506) was that, among at least 15 samples, the gene had a ≧4-fold change as compared to the median. Expression values of genes were normalized by their respective means. Red indicates that the expression values were higher than average; green represents that the values were lower than average. B. Hierarchical clustering of basal-like breast cancer samples from van de Vijver's study (n = 49; blue) and this study (n = 64; yellow). C. The expression patterns of well-known basal-like genes in this study. The basal-like genes (n = 62) were obtained from previous studies [10], [11], [21], [22]. The triple negative (TN) samples are indicated with a yellow bar and the non-TN samples are indicated with a gray bar.
Canonical pathways in which genes were associated with recurrence of TNBC.
| Ingenuity Canonical Pathways | −log( | Gene No. (% | Genes |
| cAMP-mediated Signaling | 3.70 | 11 (6.83%) |
|
| Ephrin Receptor Signaling | 3.33 | 11 (5.61%) |
|
| Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Signaling | 3.09 | 8 (6.90%) |
|
| Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Signaling | 2.71 | 7 (6.25%) |
|
| Cardiac β-adrenergic Signaling | 2.66 | 8 (5.63%) |
|
| Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Signaling | 2.66 | 7 (6.67%) |
|
| Circadian Rhythm Signaling | 2.56 | 4 (1.14%) |
|
| Synaptic Long Term Potentiation | 2.44 | 7 (6.19%) |
|
| Cell Cycle: G1/S Checkpoint Regulation | 2.37 | 5 (8.47%) |
|
| Prostate Cancer Signaling | 2.36 | 6 (6.25%) |
|
*Percentage of the number of differentially expressed genes in each canonical pathway.
#Differentially expressed genes in each canonical pathway.
Genes whose expression levels were associated with the time to recurrence of TNBC using Cox proportional hazards regression.
| Gene | Hazard |
| Gene | Hazard |
|
|
| 2.78 | 7.08×10−6 |
| 2.00 | 3.20×10−4 |
|
| 0.17 | 1.97×10−5 |
| 3.23 | 3.36×10−4 |
|
| 2.47 | 7.84×10−5 |
| 2.49 | 3.48×10−4 |
|
| 2.84 | 1.22×10−4 |
| 0.24 | 3.55×10−4 |
|
| 2.60 | 1.31×10−4 |
| 3.43 | 3.59×10−4 |
|
| 0.38 | 1.33×10−4 |
| 2.08 | 3.75×10−4 |
|
| 0.23 | 1.43×10−4 |
| 2.89 | 3.76×10−4 |
|
| 2.85 | 1.81×10−4 |
| 2.47 | 3.83×10−4 |
|
| 4.30 | 1.81×10−4 |
| 3.34 | 3.89×10−4 |
|
| 0.19 | 1.83×10−4 |
| 0.27 | 3.99×10−4 |
|
| 3.40 | 1.92×10−4 |
| 2.17 | 4.09×10−4 |
|
| 2.40 | 2.11×10−4 |
| 2.65 | 4.19×10−4 |
|
| 0.33 | 2.27×10−4 |
| 0.20 | 4.29×10−4 |
|
| 3.89 | 2.39×10−4 |
| 1.98 | 4.44×10−4 |
|
| 2.12 | 2.41×10−4 |
| 2.30 | 4.53×10−4 |
|
| 3.02 | 2.78×10−4 |
| 2.52 | 4.72×10−4 |
|
| 5.40 | 2.87×10−4 |
| 3.49 | 4.84×10−4 |
|
| 3.58 | 3.12×10−4 |
*Hazard of each gene is the exponent of coefficient in a Cox regression.
The top 10 prediction models for the recurrence of TNBC.
| No. | Genes used in the Model | AIC | BIC |
| 1 |
| 16.26 | 32.70 |
| 2 |
| 16.33 | 32.77 |
| 3 |
| 17.09 | 33.54 |
| 4 |
| 17.26 | 33.70 |
| 5 |
| 17.71 | 34.15 |
| 6 |
| 17.74 | 34.18 |
| 7 |
| 17.77 | 34.21 |
| 8 |
| 17.89 | 34.33 |
| 9 |
| 17.89 | 34.34 |
| 10 |
| 18.12 | 34.57 |
#The coefficient of each gene in Cox proportional hazard regression is shown in parentheses. A positive coefficient in a Cox regression model indicated high risk of recurrence as expression level of gene increases; whereas a negative coefficient indicated low risk of recurrence as expression level of gene increases.
*AIC: Akaike information criterion.
§BIC: Bayesian information criterion.