Literature DB >> 23964133

Independent validation of a model using cell line chemosensitivity to predict response to therapy.

Wenting Wang1, Keith A Baggerly, Steen Knudsen, Jon Askaa, Wiktor Mazin, Kevin R Coombes.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Methods using cell line microarray and drug sensitivity data to predict patients' chemotherapy response are appealing, but groups may be reluctant to release details to preserve intellectual property. Here we describe a case study to validate predictions while treating the methods as a "black box."
METHODS: Medical Prognosis Institute (MPI) constructed cell-line-derived sensitivity scores (SSs) and combined scores (CSs) that incorporate clinical variables. MD Anderson researchers evaluated their predictions. We searched the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) to identify validation datasets, and we performed statistical evaluation of the agreement between prediction and clinical observation.
RESULTS: We identified 3 suitable datasets: GSE16446 (n = 120; binary outcome), GSE17920 (n = 130; binary outcome), and GSE10255 (n = 161; continuous and time-to-event outcomes). The SS was statistically significantly associated with primary treatment responses for all studies (GSE16446: P = .02; GSE17920: P = .02; GSE10255: P = .02). Dichotomized SSs performed no better than chance for GSE16446 and GSE17920, and categorized SSs did not predict disease-free survival (GSE10255). SSs sometimes improved on predictions using clinical variables (GSE16446: P = .05; GSE17920: P = .31; GSE10255: P = .045), but gains were limited (95% confidence intervals for GSE16446 and GSE17920 include 0). The CS did not predict treatment response for GSE16446 (P = .55), but it did for GSE17920 (P < .001). Coefficients of clinical variables provided by MPI for CSs agree with estimates for GSE17920 better than estimates for GSE16446.
CONCLUSIONS: Model predictions were better than chance in all three datasets. However, these scores added little to existing clinical predictors; statistically significant contributions were likely to be too small to change clinical practice. These findings suggest that discovering better predictors will require both cell line data and a clinical training dataset of patient samples.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23964133      PMCID: PMC3955959          DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djt202

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  22 in total

1.  Adjusting batch effects in microarray expression data using empirical Bayes methods.

Authors:  W Evan Johnson; Cheng Li; Ariel Rabinovic
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2006-04-21       Impact factor: 5.899

2.  Genomic signatures to guide the use of chemotherapeutics.

Authors:  Anil Potti; Holly K Dressman; Andrea Bild; Richard F Riedel; Gina Chan; Robyn Sayer; Janiel Cragun; Hope Cottrill; Michael J Kelley; Rebecca Petersen; David Harpole; Jeffrey Marks; Andrew Berchuck; Geoffrey S Ginsburg; Phillip Febbo; Johnathan Lancaster; Joseph R Nevins
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2006-10-22       Impact factor: 53.440

3.  Microarrays: retracing steps.

Authors:  Kevin R Coombes; Jing Wang; Keith A Baggerly
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 53.440

4.  Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: from area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond.

Authors:  Michael J Pencina; Ralph B D'Agostino; Ralph B D'Agostino; Ramachandran S Vasan
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2008-01-30       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  Nomograms to predict pathologic complete response and metastasis-free survival after preoperative chemotherapy for breast cancer.

Authors:  Roman Rouzier; Lajos Pusztai; Suzette Delaloge; Ana M Gonzalez-Angulo; Fabrice Andre; Kenneth R Hess; Aman U Buzdar; Jean-Remi Garbay; Marc Spielmann; Marie-Christine Mathieu; W Fraser Symmans; Peter Wagner; David Atallah; Vicente Valero; Donald A Berry; Gabriel N Hortobagyi
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2005-11-20       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Use and misuse of the receiver operating characteristic curve in risk prediction.

Authors:  Nancy R Cook
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2007-02-20       Impact factor: 29.690

7.  De novo purine synthesis inhibition and antileukemic effects of mercaptopurine alone or in combination with methotrexate in vivo.

Authors:  Thierry Dervieux; Timothy L Brenner; Yuen Y Hon; Yinmei Zhou; Michael L Hancock; John T Sandlund; Gaston K Rivera; Raul C Ribeiro; James M Boyett; Ching-Hon Pui; Mary V Relling; William E Evans
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2002-08-15       Impact factor: 22.113

8.  Validation of gene signatures that predict the response of breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a substudy of the EORTC 10994/BIG 00-01 clinical trial.

Authors:  Hervé Bonnefoi; Anil Potti; Mauro Delorenzi; Louis Mauriac; Mario Campone; Michèle Tubiana-Hulin; Thierry Petit; Philippe Rouanet; Jacek Jassem; Emmanuel Blot; Véronique Becette; Pierre Farmer; Sylvie André; Chaitanya R Acharya; Sayan Mukherjee; David Cameron; Jonas Bergh; Joseph R Nevins; Richard D Iggo
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2007-11-19       Impact factor: 41.316

9.  Pharmacogenomic strategies provide a rational approach to the treatment of cisplatin-resistant patients with advanced cancer.

Authors:  David S Hsu; Bala S Balakumaran; Chaitanya R Acharya; Vanja Vlahovic; Kelli S Walters; Katherine Garman; Carey Anders; Richard F Riedel; Johnathan Lancaster; David Harpole; Holly K Dressman; Joseph R Nevins; Phillip G Febbo; Anil Potti
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2007-10-01       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  A prognostic score for advanced Hodgkin's disease. International Prognostic Factors Project on Advanced Hodgkin's Disease.

Authors:  D Hasenclever; V Diehl
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1998-11-19       Impact factor: 91.245

View more
  9 in total

1.  Precision medicine for cancer patients: lessons learned and the path forward.

Authors:  Adi F Gazdar; John D Minna
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2013-08-20       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Integration of Tumor Genomic Data with Cell Lines Using Multi-dimensional Network Modules Improves Cancer Pharmacogenomics.

Authors:  James T Webber; Swati Kaushik; Sourav Bandyopadhyay
Journal:  Cell Syst       Date:  2018-11-07       Impact factor: 10.304

3.  Development and validation of a gene expression score that predicts response to fulvestrant in breast cancer patients.

Authors:  Steen Knudsen; Thomas Jensen; Anker Hansen; Wiktor Mazin; Justin Lindemann; Irene Kuter; Naomi Laing; Elizabeth Anderson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-02-05       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Development and blind clinical validation of a microRNA based predictor of response to treatment with R-CHO(E)P in DLBCL.

Authors:  Steen Knudsen; Christoffer Hother; Kirsten Grønbæk; Thomas Jensen; Anker Hansen; Wiktor Mazin; Jesper Dahlgaard; Michael Boe Møller; Elizabeth Ralfkiær; Peter de Nully Brown
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-02-18       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Predicting response to multidrug regimens in cancer patients using cell line experiments and regularised regression models.

Authors:  Steffen Falgreen; Karen Dybkær; Ken H Young; Zijun Y Xu-Monette; Tarec C El-Galaly; Maria Bach Laursen; Julie S Bødker; Malene K Kjeldsen; Alexander Schmitz; Mette Nyegaard; Hans Erik Johnsen; Martin Bøgsted
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2015-04-08       Impact factor: 4.430

6.  Cell Line Derived 5-FU and Irinotecan Drug-Sensitivity Profiles Evaluated in Adjuvant Colon Cancer Trial Data.

Authors:  Ida Kappel Buhl; Sarah Gerster; Mauro Delorenzi; Thomas Jensen; Peter Buhl Jensen; Fred Bosman; Sabine Tejpar; Arnaud Roth; Nils Brunner; Anker Hansen; Steen Knudsen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-05-12       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Molecular prediction of adjuvant cisplatin efficacy in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC)-validation in two independent cohorts.

Authors:  Ida Kappel Buhl; Eric Santoni-Rugiu; Jesper Ravn; Anker Hansen; Ib Jarle Christensen; Thomas Jensen; Bruce Pratt; Jon Askaa; Peter Buhl Jensen; Steen Knudsen; Jens Benn Sørensen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-03-22       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Predicting efficacy of epirubicin by a multigene assay in advanced breast cancer within a Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (DBCG) cohort: a retrospective-prospective blinded study.

Authors:  Anna Sofie Kappel Buhl; Troels Dreier Christensen; Ib Jarle Christensen; Knud Mejer Nelausen; Eva Balslev; Ann Søegaard Knoop; Eva Harder Brix; Else Svensson; Vesna Glavicic; Adam Luczak; Sven Tyge Langkjer; Søren Linnet; Erik Hugger Jakobsen; Jurij Bogovic; Bent Ejlertsen; Annie Rasmussen; Anker Hansen; Steen Knudsen; Dorte Nielsen; Peter Buhl Jensen
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2018-08-11       Impact factor: 4.872

9.  A machine learning-based gene signature of response to the novel alkylating agent LP-184 distinguishes its potential tumor indications.

Authors:  Umesh Kathad; Aditya Kulkarni; Joseph Ryan McDermott; Jordan Wegner; Peter Carr; Neha Biyani; Rama Modali; Jean-Philippe Richard; Panna Sharma; Kishor Bhatia
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2021-03-02       Impact factor: 3.169

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.