BACKGROUND: Single sample predictors (SSPs) and Subtype classification models (SCMs) are gene expression-based classifiers used to identify the four primary molecular subtypes of breast cancer (basal-like, HER2-enriched, luminal A, and luminal B). SSPs use hierarchical clustering, followed by nearest centroid classification, based on large sets of tumor-intrinsic genes. SCMs use a mixture of Gaussian distributions based on sets of genes with expression specifically correlated with three key breast cancer genes (estrogen receptor [ER], HER2, and aurora kinase A [AURKA]). The aim of this study was to compare the robustness, classification concordance, and prognostic value of these classifiers with those of a simplified three-gene SCM in a large compendium of microarray datasets. METHODS: Thirty-six publicly available breast cancer datasets (n = 5715) were subjected to molecular subtyping using five published classifiers (three SSPs and two SCMs) and SCMGENE, the new three-gene (ER, HER2, and AURKA) SCM. We used the prediction strength statistic to estimate robustness of the classification models, defined as the capacity of a classifier to assign the same tumors to the same subtypes independently of the dataset used to fit it. We used Cohen κ and Cramer V coefficients to assess concordance between the subtype classifiers and association with clinical variables, respectively. We used Kaplan-Meier survival curves and cross-validated partial likelihood to compare prognostic value of the resulting classifications. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: SCMs were statistically significantly more robust than SSPs, with SCMGENE being the most robust because of its simplicity. SCMGENE was statistically significantly concordant with published SCMs (κ = 0.65-0.70) and SSPs (κ = 0.34-0.59), statistically significantly associated with ER (V = 0.64), HER2 (V = 0.52) status, and histological grade (V = 0.55), and yielded similar strong prognostic value. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that adequate classification of the major and clinically relevant molecular subtypes of breast cancer can be robustly achieved with quantitative measurements of three key genes.
BACKGROUND: Single sample predictors (SSPs) and Subtype classification models (SCMs) are gene expression-based classifiers used to identify the four primary molecular subtypes of breast cancer (basal-like, HER2-enriched, luminal A, and luminal B). SSPs use hierarchical clustering, followed by nearest centroid classification, based on large sets of tumor-intrinsic genes. SCMs use a mixture of Gaussian distributions based on sets of genes with expression specifically correlated with three key breast cancer genes (estrogen receptor [ER], HER2, and aurora kinase A [AURKA]). The aim of this study was to compare the robustness, classification concordance, and prognostic value of these classifiers with those of a simplified three-gene SCM in a large compendium of microarray datasets. METHODS: Thirty-six publicly available breast cancer datasets (n = 5715) were subjected to molecular subtyping using five published classifiers (three SSPs and two SCMs) and SCMGENE, the new three-gene (ER, HER2, and AURKA) SCM. We used the prediction strength statistic to estimate robustness of the classification models, defined as the capacity of a classifier to assign the same tumors to the same subtypes independently of the dataset used to fit it. We used Cohen κ and Cramer V coefficients to assess concordance between the subtype classifiers and association with clinical variables, respectively. We used Kaplan-Meier survival curves and cross-validated partial likelihood to compare prognostic value of the resulting classifications. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: SCMs were statistically significantly more robust than SSPs, with SCMGENE being the most robust because of its simplicity. SCMGENE was statistically significantly concordant with published SCMs (κ = 0.65-0.70) and SSPs (κ = 0.34-0.59), statistically significantly associated with ER (V = 0.64), HER2 (V = 0.52) status, and histological grade (V = 0.55), and yielded similar strong prognostic value. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that adequate classification of the major and clinically relevant molecular subtypes of breast cancer can be robustly achieved with quantitative measurements of three key genes.
Authors: Lajos Pusztai; Kristine Broglio; Fabrice Andre; W Fraser Symmans; Kenneth R Hess; Gabriel N Hortobagyi Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-07-28 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Harri Sihto; Johan Lundin; Tiina Lehtimäki; Maarit Sarlomo-Rikala; Ralf Bützow; Kaija Holli; Liisa Sailas; Vesa Kataja; Mikael Lundin; Taina Turpeenniemi-Hujanen; Jorma Isola; Päivi Heikkilä; Heikki Joensuu Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2008-07-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Marcus Schmidt; Daniel Böhm; Christian von Törne; Eric Steiner; Alexander Puhl; Henryk Pilch; Hans-Anton Lehr; Jan G Hengstler; Heinz Kölbl; Mathias Gehrmann Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2008-07-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Aleix Prat; Joel S Parker; Olga Karginova; Cheng Fan; Chad Livasy; Jason I Herschkowitz; Xiaping He; Charles M Perou Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2010-09-02 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Sarah Dedeurwaerder; Christine Desmedt; Emilie Calonne; Sandeep K Singhal; Benjamin Haibe-Kains; Matthieu Defrance; Stefan Michiels; Michael Volkmar; Rachel Deplus; Judith Luciani; Françoise Lallemand; Denis Larsimont; Jérôme Toussaint; Sandy Haussy; Françoise Rothé; Ghizlane Rouas; Otto Metzger; Samira Majjaj; Kamal Saini; Pascale Putmans; Gérald Hames; Nicolas van Baren; Pierre G Coulie; Martine Piccart; Christos Sotiriou; François Fuks Journal: EMBO Mol Med Date: 2011-11-16 Impact factor: 12.137
Authors: Pavel Bouchal; Monika Dvořáková; Theodoros Roumeliotis; Zbyněk Bortlíček; Ivana Ihnatová; Iva Procházková; Jenny T C Ho; Josef Maryáš; Hana Imrichová; Eva Budinská; Rostislav Vyzula; Spiros D Garbis; Bořivoj Vojtěšek; Rudolf Nenutil Journal: Mol Cell Proteomics Date: 2015-04-22 Impact factor: 5.911
Authors: Amir Sonnenblick; Roberto Salgado; Sylvain Brohée; Tamar Zahavi; Tamar Peretz; Gert Van den Eynden; Ghizlane Rouas; Asher Salmon; Prudence A Francis; Angelo Di Leo; John P A Crown; Giuseppe Viale; Laura Daly; Bahar Javdan; Sho Fujisawa; Evandro De Azambuja; Ameye Lieveke; Martine J Piccart; Jacqueline F Bromberg; Christos Sotiriou Journal: Int J Oncol Date: 2017-11-27 Impact factor: 5.650
Authors: Mélanie Laurin; Jennifer Huber; Ariane Pelletier; Tarek Houalla; Morag Park; Yoshinori Fukui; Benjamin Haibe-Kains; William J Muller; Jean-François Côté Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2013-04-16 Impact factor: 11.205