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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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