| Literature DB >> 24885236 |
Ryan van Laar1, Rachel Flinchum, Nathan Brown, Joseph Ramsey, Sam Riccitelli, Christoph Heuck, Bart Barlogie, John D Shaughnessy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Widespread adoption of genomic technologies in the management of heterogeneous indications, including Multiple Myeloma, has been hindered by concern over variation between published gene expression signatures, difficulty in physician interpretation and the challenge of obtaining sufficient genetic material from limited patient specimens.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24885236 PMCID: PMC4032347 DOI: 10.1186/1755-8794-7-25
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Genomics ISSN: 1755-8794 Impact factor: 3.063
Peer-reviewed publications describing the use of GEP70/MyPRS® gene expression profiling on patients with multiple myeloma
| 1-Jan-2006 | 351 | Newly diagnosed patients with MM treated with 2 cycles of high-dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplantation [ | Shaughnessy JD Jr, Barlogie B. “Using genomics to identify high-risk Myeloma after autologous stem cell transplantation”. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2006; 12 (1 Suppl 1):77–80. |
| 25-May-2006 | 414 | Newly diagnosed patients treated with high-dose melphalan-based tandem transplants [ | Zhan et al. “The molecular classification of multiple myeloma”. Blood 2006; 108(6):2020–2028. |
| 14-Nov-2006 | 532 | Newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma (MM) treated on 2 separate protocols [ | Shaughnessy et al. “A validated gene expression model of high-risk multiple myeloma is defined by deregulated expression of genes mapping to chromosome 1”. Blood 2007; 109:2276–84. |
| 9-May-2007 | 220 | Newly diagnosed patients treated with TT2 [ | Shaughnessy et al. “Testing standard and genetic parameters in 220 patients with multiple Myeloma with complete data sets: superiority of molecular genetics”. Br J Haematol 2007; 137:530–536. |
| 22-Jun-2007 | 303 | Newly diagnosed patients with myeloma treated with Total therapy 3 (incorporating bortezomib into a melphalan-based tandem transplant regimen) [ | Barlogie et al. “Incorporating bortezomib into upfront treatment for multiple myeloma: early results of total therapy 3”. Br J Haemotol 2007; 138:176-185 |
| 7-Sep-2007 | 71 | Newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients treated with high-dose melphalan and stem cell transplant [ | Chng et al. “Translocation t(4;14) retains prognostic significance even in the setting of high-risk molecular signature”. Leukemia 2008; 22:459–61. |
| 1-Dec-2007 | 326 | Newly diagnosed patients with myeloma received a tandem autotransplant regimen [ | Haessler et al. “Benefit of complete response in multiple myeloma limited to high-risk subgroup identified by gene expression profiling”. Clin Cancer Res. 2007; 13(23):7073-7079 |
| 15-Jan-2008 | 156 | Relapsed myeloma patients enrolled in the APEX phase 3 clinical trial that compared single-agent bortezomib (B) to high-dose dexamethasone (HD) [ | Zhan et al. “High-risk myeloma: a gene expression based risk-stratification model for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma treated with high-dose therapy is predictive of outcome in relapsed disease treated with single-agent bortezomib or high-dose dexamethasone.” Blood 2008; 111(2):968–969. |
| 30-Jun-2008 | 250 | Two hundred fifty patients with myeloma at diagnosis with at least 500,000 available bone marrow CD138+ plasma cells [ | Decaux etl al. Prediction of Survival in Multiple Myeloma Based on Gene Expression Profiles Reveals Cell Cycle and Chromosomal Instability Signatures in High-Risk Patients and Hyperdiploid Signatures in Low-Risk Patients: A Study of the Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome JCO October 10, 2008:4798–4805; |
| 29-Mar-2009 | 290 | Untreated myeloma patients with cytogenetic abnormalities (CA) present in randomly sampled (RS) or focal lesion (FL) bone marrow sites [ | Zhou et al. “Cytogenetic abnormalities in multiple myeloma: poor prognosis is linked to concomitant detection in random and focal lesion bone marrow samples and associated with high-risk gene expression profile”. Br J Haematol 2009; 145(5):637-641 |
| 25-Jun-2009 | 120 | Myeloma patients previously enrolled in tandem transplantation trial Total Therapy 2 [ | Nair et al. “Gene expression profiling of plasma cells at myeloma relapse from tandem transplantation trial Total Therapy 2 predicts subsequent survival”. Blood 2009; 113:6572–5. |
| 14-Mar-2010 | 258 | Newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma entered into the MRC Myeloma IX study [ | Dickens et al. Homozygous Deletion Mapping in Myeloma Samples Identifies Genes and an Expression Signature Relevant to Pathogenesis and Outcome. Clin Cancer Res March 15, 2010 16:1856–1864; |
| 12-Apr-2010 | 52 | Patients newly diagnosed with MM [ | Zhou et al. “High-risk myeloma is associated with global elevation of MiRNAs and overexpression of EIF2C2/AGO2”. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2010; 107(17): 7904-790 |
| 30-Sep-2010 | 757 | Previously untreated patients undergoing high-dose chemotherapy [ | Hose et al. “Proliferation is a central independent prognostic factor and target for personalized and risk adapted treatment in multiple myeloma”. Haematologica 2011; 96(1):87–95. |
| 20-Aug-2010 | 275 | Newly diagnosed patients with symptomatic or progressive myeloma [ | van Rhee et al. Total Therapy 3 for multiple myeloma: prognostic implications of cumulative dosing and premature discontinuation of VTD maintenance components, bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone, relevant to all phases of therapy. Blood 2010 116:1220–1227; |
| 7-Oct-2010 | 320 | Newly diagnosed patients with MM (Dutch-Belgian Cooperative Trial Group for Hemato-Oncology [ | Broyl et al. Gene expression profiling for molecular classification of multiple myeloma in newly diagnosed patients. Blood 2010 116:2543–2553; |
| 22-Aug-2011 | 45 | Patients with myeloma receiving initial therapy with lenalidomide and dexamethasone [ | Kumar et al. “Impact of gene expression profiling-based risk stratification in patients with myeloma receiving initial therapy with lenalidomide and dexamethasone”. Blood 2011; 118(16): 4359–4362. |
Publications listed are the first use of GEP70 to stratify patients in the relevant cohort as high or low risk for. Additional publications reanalyzing the same (or subsets of a) patient series are not shown.
Figure 1Inter-laboratory reproduciblity; Analysis of GEP70 scores calculated on 99 clinical bone marrow aspirate specimens analyzed in parallel by UAMS Myeloma Instiute for Research and Treatment (MIRT) (1a. y-axis) and Signal Genetics CLIA laboratory (1b x-axis). Lines at 45.2 correspond to the low/high risk threshold.
Figure 2Analysis of MyPRS Control Sample stability over time. MyPRS Control Sample stability over time; (A) H929 Control sample GEP70 scores generated bewteen August 2012 and August 2013 exhitit high stability over time. No gradual shift up or down in risk score is observed. Standard deviation of risk scores in this analysies was 2.72 and a CV of 0.03. (B) Control sample data from September 2013 to February 2014 (new aliquot of H929) shows further improvements in assay stability. Standard deviation 1.70, CV 0.019.
Figure 3Intra-laboratory reproducibility; Comparison of GEP70 scores from 30 specimens analyzed in duplicate. Correlation coefficient of 0.98 shows an extremely high degree of reproducibility between experiments.
Figure 4A-D: Analysis of bone marrow aspirate specimen variability vs. RNA quality and GEP70 risk score; The relative CD138+ cell content (pre- and post- sorting) vs RNA integrity and GEP70 risk score of 1000 randomly selected clinical specimens submitted for MyPRS analysis is shown above. The wide range in cellularity of specimens submitted for MyPRS analysis (0.25 - 96.2%) does not impact on the quality of the RNA isolated for gene expression profiling, nor the final GEP70 risk score.
GeneChip QC metric summary and GEP70 scores for pooled aRNA titration experiments
| RE13-000031-850291.CEL | 10 | Low | 41.11 | 41.73 | 0.56 | 0/0/7 |
| RE13-000032-850251.CEL | 10 | Low | 42.19 | 0/0/7 | ||
| RE13-000033-850371.CEL | 10 | Low | 41.88 | 0/0/7 | ||
| RE13-000034-850240.CEL | 8 | Low | 41.20 | 41.25 | 0.29 | 0/0/7 |
| RE13-000035-850377.CEL | 8 | Low | 40.98 | 0/0/7 | ||
| RE13-000036-850294.CEL | 8 | Low | 41.55 | 0/0/7 | ||
| RE13-000037-850370.CEL | 6 | Low | 40.67 | 41.31 | 1.01 | 0/0/7 |
| RE13-000038-850379.CEL | 6 | Low | 42.47 | 0/0/7 | ||
| RE13-000039-850245.CEL | 6 | Low | 40.78 | 0/0/7 | ||
| RE13-000040-850236.CEL | 4 | Low | 40.90 | 41.42 | 0.54 | 0/0/7 |
| RE13-000041-850376.CEL | 4 | Low | 41.38 | 0/0/7 | ||
| RE13-000042-850395.CEL | 4 | Low | 41.98 | 0/0/7 | ||
| RE13-000043-850397.CEL | 2 | Low | 41.23 | 41.17 | 0.70 | 0/1/7 |
| RE13-000044-850358.CEL | 2 | Low | 41.85 | 0/0/7 | ||
| RE13-000045-850369.CEL | 2 | Low | 40.45 | 0/0/7 | ||
| | | | | |||
| RE13-000046-840059.CEL | 10 | Low | 43.48 | 41.65 | 1.88 | 0/0/7 |
| RE13-000047-840224.CEL | 10 | Low | 41.76 | 0/0/7 | ||
| RE13-000048-840239.CEL | 10 | Low | 39.72 | 0/0/7 | ||
| RE13-000049-840201.CEL | 8 | Low | 43.95 | 43.46 | 0.43 | 0/0/7 |
| RE13-000050-840219.CEL | 8 | Low | 43.22 | 0/0/7 | ||
| RE13-000051-840245.CEL | 8 | Low | 43.20 | 0/0/7 | ||
| RE13-000052-840243.CEL | 6 | Low | 43.97 | 41.88 | 1.92 | 0/0/7 |
| RE13-000053-840205.CEL | 6 | Low | 40.19 | 0/0/7 | ||
| RE13-000054-840242.CEL | 6 | Low | 41.50 | 0/0/7 | ||
| RE13-000055-840246.CEL | 4 | Low | 42.71 | 43.20 | 0.96 | 0/0/7 |
| RE13-000056-840051.CEL | 4 | Low | 44.31 | 0/1/6 | ||
| RE13-000057-840199.CEL | 4 | Low | 42.59 | 0/0/7 | ||
| RE13-000058-840213.CEL | 2 | Low | 43.01 | 42.81 | 0.69 | 0/1/6 |
| RE13-000059-840032.CEL | 2 | Low | 42.04 | 0/1/6 | ||
| RE13-000060-840236.CEL | 2 | Low | 43.37 | 0/1/6 | ||
Low RNA-yield clinical specimens: Nanodrop RNA 260/280 ratio, aRNA concentration and GeneChip QC metrics
| RE13-000082 | Archival samples with low yield | |||||
| RE13-000079 | Archival samples with low yield | |||||
| RE13-000080 | Archival samples with low yield | |||||
| RE13-000076 | Archival samples with low yield | |||||
| RE13-000092 | Fresh sample with low yield | |||||
| RE13-000074 | Archival samples with low yield | |||||
| RE13-000063 | Archival samples with low yield | |||||
| RE13-000077 | Archival samples with low yield | |||||
| RE13-000089 | Fresh sample with low yield | |||||
| RE13-000064 | Archival samples with low yield | |||||
| RE13-000073 | Archival samples with low yield | |||||
| RE13-000075 | Archival samples with low yield | 2.4 | ||||
| RE13-000066 | Archival samples with low yield | 18,000 | ||||
| RE13-000085 | Fresh sample with low yield | |||||
| RE13-000069 | Archival samples with low yield | |||||
| RE13-000088 | Fresh sample with low yield | 20,000 | 227.8 | |||
| RE13-000081 | Archival samples with low yield | 3,2,2 | Fail | |||
| RE13-000084 | Fresh sample with low yield | 1,0,6 | Fail | |||
| RE13-000067 | Archival samples with low yield | 271.2 | 0,3,4 | Fail | ||
| RE13-000068 | Archival samples with low yield | 263.3 | 2,1,4 | Fail | ||
| RE13-000071 | Archival samples with low yield | 20,000 | 254.6 | 0,3,4 | Fail | |
| RE13-000061 | Archival samples with low yield | 220 | 0,3,4 | Fail | ||
| RE13-000083 | Archival samples with low yield | 215.5 | 2,4,1 | Fail | ||
| RE13-000078 | Archival samples with low yield | 17,000 | 214.6 | 1,2,4 | Fail | |
| RE13-000065 | Archival samples with low yield | 208.4 | 1,2,4 | Fail | ||
| RE13-000090 | Fresh sample with low yield | 18,000 | 166.6 | 0,3,4 | Fail | |
| RE13-000091 | Fresh sample with low yield | 9,000 | 144.7 | 0,3,4 | Fail | |
| RE13-000062 | Archival samples with low yield | 10,000 | 2.4 | 122.8 | 2,3,2 | Fail |
| RE13-000070 | Archival samples with low yield | 2.5 | 100.5 | 3,2,2 | Fail | |
| RE13-000086 | Fresh sample with low yield | 5,000 | 0.9 | 94.5 | 1,5,1 | Fail |
Values in bold type correspond to those passing the minimum acceptance threshold. Hybridization success is predicted using post-sort number of cells (>20,000) RNA concenctration (> = 3 ng/μL) and aRNA concentration (> = 280 ng/μL).
Figure 5Personalized MyPRS eene expression heatmaps; Generated for each MyPRS analysis performed to visualize the assocaition between the individual gene expression levels (green = low expression, red = high expression), GEP70 score and patient outcome. Yellow line indicates the expression profile of the patient currently being analyzed, with the horizontal position determined by the individual GEP70 score. The red/blue panel at the top of the heatmap corresponds to 5 year relapse events, as observed in the algorithm training series.