Markus Riester1, Wei Wei1, Levi Waldron1, Aedin C Culhane1, Lorenzo Trippa1, Esther Oliva1, Sung-Hoon Kim1, Franziska Michor1, Curtis Huttenhower1, Giovanni Parmigiani1, Michael J Birrer2. 1. Affiliations of authors: Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA (MR, ACC, LT, FM, CH, GP); Department of Biostatistics, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA (MR, ACC, LT, FM, CH, GP); Center for Cancer Research (WW, S-hK, MB) and Department of Pathology (EO), Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; City University of New York School of Public Health, Hunter College, New York, NY (LW); Sung-hoon Kim, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea (S-HK). 2. Affiliations of authors: Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA (MR, ACC, LT, FM, CH, GP); Department of Biostatistics, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA (MR, ACC, LT, FM, CH, GP); Center for Cancer Research (WW, S-hK, MB) and Department of Pathology (EO), Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; City University of New York School of Public Health, Hunter College, New York, NY (LW); Sung-hoon Kim, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea (S-HK). mbirrer@partners.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer causes more than 15000 deaths per year in the United States. The survival of patients is quite heterogeneous, and accurate prognostic tools would help with the clinical management of these patients. METHODS: We developed and validated two gene expression signatures, the first for predicting survival in advanced-stage, serous ovarian cancer and the second for predicting debulking status. We integrated 13 publicly available datasets totaling 1525 subjects. We trained prediction models using a meta-analysis variation on the compound covariable method, tested models by a "leave-one-dataset-out" procedure, and validated models in additional independent datasets. Selected genes from the debulking signature were validated by immunohistochemistry and quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) in two further independent cohorts of 179 and 78 patients, respectively. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: The survival signature stratified patients into high- and low-risk groups (hazard ratio = 2.19; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.84 to 2.61) statistically significantly better than the TCGA signature (P = .04). POSTN, CXCL14, FAP, NUAK1, PTCH1, and TGFBR2 were validated by qRT-PCR (P < .05) and POSTN, CXCL14, and phosphorylated Smad2/3 were validated by immunohistochemistry (P < .001) as independent predictors of debulking status. The sum of immunohistochemistry intensities for these three proteins provided a tool that classified 92.8% of samples correctly in high- and low-risk groups for suboptimal debulking (area under the curve = 0.89; 95% CI = 0.84 to 0.93). CONCLUSIONS: Our survival signature provides the most accurate and validated prognostic model for early- and advanced-stage high-grade, serous ovarian cancer. The debulking signature accurately predicts the outcome of cytoreductive surgery, potentially allowing for stratification of patients for primary vs secondary cytoreduction.
BACKGROUND:Ovarian cancer causes more than 15000 deaths per year in the United States. The survival of patients is quite heterogeneous, and accurate prognostic tools would help with the clinical management of these patients. METHODS: We developed and validated two gene expression signatures, the first for predicting survival in advanced-stage, serous ovarian cancer and the second for predicting debulking status. We integrated 13 publicly available datasets totaling 1525 subjects. We trained prediction models using a meta-analysis variation on the compound covariable method, tested models by a "leave-one-dataset-out" procedure, and validated models in additional independent datasets. Selected genes from the debulking signature were validated by immunohistochemistry and quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) in two further independent cohorts of 179 and 78 patients, respectively. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: The survival signature stratified patients into high- and low-risk groups (hazard ratio = 2.19; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.84 to 2.61) statistically significantly better than the TCGA signature (P = .04). POSTN, CXCL14, FAP, NUAK1, PTCH1, and TGFBR2 were validated by qRT-PCR (P < .05) and POSTN, CXCL14, and phosphorylated Smad2/3 were validated by immunohistochemistry (P < .001) as independent predictors of debulking status. The sum of immunohistochemistry intensities for these three proteins provided a tool that classified 92.8% of samples correctly in high- and low-risk groups for suboptimal debulking (area under the curve = 0.89; 95% CI = 0.84 to 0.93). CONCLUSIONS: Our survival signature provides the most accurate and validated prognostic model for early- and advanced-stage high-grade, serous ovarian cancer. The debulking signature accurately predicts the outcome of cytoreductive surgery, potentially allowing for stratification of patients for primary vs secondary cytoreduction.
Authors: Jean-Pierre Gillet; Anna Maria Calcagno; Sudhir Varma; Ben Davidson; Mari Bunkholt Elstrand; Ram Ganapathi; Aparna A Kamat; Anil K Sood; Suresh V Ambudkar; Michael V Seiden; Bo R Rueda; Michael M Gottesman Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2012-04-05 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Wolfgang Huber; Vincent J Carey; Robert Gentleman; Simon Anders; Marc Carlson; Benilton S Carvalho; Hector Corrada Bravo; Sean Davis; Laurent Gatto; Thomas Girke; Raphael Gottardo; Florian Hahne; Kasper D Hansen; Rafael A Irizarry; Michael Lawrence; Michael I Love; James MacDonald; Valerie Obenchain; Andrzej K Oleś; Hervé Pagès; Alejandro Reyes; Paul Shannon; Gordon K Smyth; Dan Tenenbaum; Levi Waldron; Martin Morgan Journal: Nat Methods Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 28.547
Authors: Neil S Horowitz; G Larry Maxwell; Austin Miller; Chad A Hamilton; Bunja Rungruang; Noah Rodriguez; Scott D Richard; Thomas C Krivak; Jeffrey M Fowler; David G Mutch; Linda Van Le; Roger B Lee; Peter Argenta; David Bender; Krishnansu S Tewari; David Gershenson; James J Java; Michael A Bookman Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2017-11-23 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Katharine K Brieger; Siri Peterson; Alice W Lee; Bhramar Mukherjee; Kelly M Bakulski; Aliya Alimujiang; Hoda Anton-Culver; Michael S Anglesio; Elisa V Bandera; Andrew Berchuck; David D L Bowtell; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Kathleen R Cho; Daniel W Cramer; Anna DeFazio; Jennifer A Doherty; Renée T Fortner; Dale W Garsed; Simon A Gayther; Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj; Ellen L Goode; Marc T Goodman; Holly R Harris; Estrid Høgdall; David G Huntsman; Hui Shen; Allan Jensen; Sharon E Johnatty; Susan J Jordan; Susanne K Kjaer; Jolanta Kupryjanczyk; Diether Lambrechts; Karen McLean; Usha Menon; Francesmary Modugno; Kirsten Moysich; Roberta Ness; Susan J Ramus; Jean Richardson; Harvey Risch; Mary Anne Rossing; Britton Trabert; Nicolas Wentzensen; Argyrios Ziogas; Kathryn L Terry; Anna H Wu; Gillian E Hanley; Paul Pharoah; Penelope M Webb; Malcolm C Pike; Celeste Leigh Pearce Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2020-07-06 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Nicholas W Bateman; Elizabeth Jaworski; Wei Ao; Guisong Wang; Tracy Litzi; Elizabeth Dubil; Charlotte Marcus; Kelly A Conrads; Pang-ning Teng; Brian L Hood; Neil T Phippen; Lisa A Vasicek; William P McGuire; Keren Paz; David Sidransky; Chad A Hamilton; G Larry Maxwell; Kathleen M Darcy; Thomas P Conrads Journal: J Proteome Res Date: 2015-03-19 Impact factor: 4.466
Authors: Chen Wang; Sebastian M Armasu; Kimberly R Kalli; Matthew J Maurer; Ethan P Heinzen; Gary L Keeney; William A Cliby; Ann L Oberg; Scott H Kaufmann; Ellen L Goode Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-03-09 Impact factor: 12.531