PURPOSE: A 128-gene signature has been proposed to predict outcome in patients with stages II and III colorectal cancers. In the present study, we aimed to reproduce and validate the 128-gene signature in external and independent material. METHODS: Gene expression data from the original material were retrieved from the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) (n = 111) in addition to a Danish data set (n = 37). All patients had stages II and III colon cancers. A Prediction Analysis of Microarray classifier, based on the 128-gene signature and the original training set of stage I (n = 65) and stage IV (n = 76) colon cancers, was reproduced. The stages II and III colon cancers were subsequently classified as either stage I-like (good prognosis) or stage IV-like (poor prognosis) and assessed by the 36 months cumulative incidence of relapse. RESULTS: In the GEO data set, results were reproducible in stage III, as patients predicted to be stage I-like had a significant lower risk of relapse than patients predicted as stage IV-like (P = 0.04, Gray test). Results were not reproducible in stage II patients (P > 0.05, Gray test). In the Danish data set, two of four stage III patients with relapse were correctly predicted as stage IV-like, and the remaining patients were predicted as stage I-like and unclassifiable, respectively. Stage II patients could not be stratified. CONCLUSIONS: The 128-gene signature showed reproducibility in stage III colon cancer, but could not predict recurrence in stage II. Individual patient predictions in an independent Danish material were unsatisfactory. Additional validation in larger cohorts is warranted.
PURPOSE: A 128-gene signature has been proposed to predict outcome in patients with stages II and III colorectal cancers. In the present study, we aimed to reproduce and validate the 128-gene signature in external and independent material. METHODS: Gene expression data from the original material were retrieved from the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) (n = 111) in addition to a Danish data set (n = 37). All patients had stages II and III colon cancers. A Prediction Analysis of Microarray classifier, based on the 128-gene signature and the original training set of stage I (n = 65) and stage IV (n = 76) colon cancers, was reproduced. The stages II and III colon cancers were subsequently classified as either stage I-like (good prognosis) or stage IV-like (poor prognosis) and assessed by the 36 months cumulative incidence of relapse. RESULTS: In the GEO data set, results were reproducible in stage III, as patients predicted to be stage I-like had a significant lower risk of relapse than patients predicted as stage IV-like (P = 0.04, Gray test). Results were not reproducible in stage II patients (P > 0.05, Gray test). In the Danish data set, two of four stage III patients with relapse were correctly predicted as stage IV-like, and the remaining patients were predicted as stage I-like and unclassifiable, respectively. Stage II patients could not be stratified. CONCLUSIONS: The 128-gene signature showed reproducibility in stage III colon cancer, but could not predict recurrence in stage II. Individual patient predictions in an independent Danish material were unsatisfactory. Additional validation in larger cohorts is warranted.
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: Jørgen Olsen; Thomas A Gerds; Jakob B Seidelin; Claudio Csillag; Jacob T Bjerrum; Jesper T Troelsen; Ole Haagen Nielsen Journal: Inflamm Bowel Dis Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 5.325
Authors: Steven Eschrich; Ivana Yang; Greg Bloom; Ka Yin Kwong; David Boulware; Alan Cantor; Domenico Coppola; Mogens Kruhøffer; Lauri Aaltonen; Torben F Orntoft; John Quackenbush; Timothy J Yeatman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-05-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Lennart Opitz; Gabriela Salinas-Riester; Marian Grade; Klaus Jung; Peter Jo; Georg Emons; B Michael Ghadimi; Tim Beissbarth; Jochen Gaedcke Journal: BMC Med Genomics Date: 2010-08-09 Impact factor: 3.063
Authors: Robert C Gentleman; Vincent J Carey; Douglas M Bates; Ben Bolstad; Marcel Dettling; Sandrine Dudoit; Byron Ellis; Laurent Gautier; Yongchao Ge; Jeff Gentry; Kurt Hornik; Torsten Hothorn; Wolfgang Huber; Stefano Iacus; Rafael Irizarry; Friedrich Leisch; Cheng Li; Martin Maechler; Anthony J Rossini; Gunther Sawitzki; Colin Smith; Gordon Smyth; Luke Tierney; Jean Y H Yang; Jianhua Zhang Journal: Genome Biol Date: 2004-09-15 Impact factor: 13.583
Authors: C G Moertel; T R Fleming; J S Macdonald; D G Haller; J A Laurie; C M Tangen; J S Ungerleider; W A Emerson; D C Tormey; J H Glick; M H Veeder; J A Mailliard Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 1995-03-01 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: J Joshua Smith; Natasha G Deane; Fei Wu; Nipun B Merchant; Bing Zhang; Aixiang Jiang; Pengcheng Lu; J Chad Johnson; Carl Schmidt; Christina E Bailey; Steven Eschrich; Christian Kis; Shawn Levy; M Kay Washington; Martin J Heslin; Robert J Coffey; Timothy J Yeatman; Yu Shyr; R Daniel Beauchamp Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2009-11-13 Impact factor: 22.682
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: Daniel A Sussman; Rebeca Santaolalla; Pablo A Bejarano; Monica T Garcia-Buitrago; Maria T Perez; Maria T Abreu; Jennifer Clarke Journal: J Exp Clin Cancer Res Date: 2014-05-22