| Literature DB >> 25142434 |
Edyta M Borkowska1, Andrzej Kruk, Adam Jedrzejczyk, Marek Rozniecki, Zbigniew Jablonowski, Magdalena Traczyk, Maria Constantinou, Monika Banaszkiewicz, Michal Pietrusinski, Marek Sosnowski, Freddie C Hamdy, Stefan Peter, James W F Catto, Bogdan Kaluzewski.
Abstract
Kohonen self-organizing maps (SOMs) are unsupervised Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) that are good for low-density data visualization. They easily deal with complex and nonlinear relationships between variables. We evaluated molecular events that characterize high- and low-grade BC pathways in the tumors from 104 patients. We compared the ability of statistical clustering with a SOM to stratify tumors according to the risk of progression to more advanced disease. In univariable analysis, tumor stage (log rank P = 0.006) and grade (P < 0.001), HPV DNA (P < 0.004), Chromosome 9 loss (P = 0.04) and the A148T polymorphism (rs 3731249) in CDKN2A (P = 0.02) were associated with progression. Multivariable analysis of these parameters identified that tumor grade (Cox regression, P = 0.001, OR.2.9 (95% CI 1.6-5.2)) and the presence of HPV DNA (P = 0.017, OR 3.8 (95% CI 1.3-11.4)) were the only independent predictors of progression. Unsupervised hierarchical clustering grouped the tumors into discreet branches but did not stratify according to progression free survival (log rank P = 0.39). These genetic variables were presented to SOM input neurons. SOMs are suitable for complex data integration, allow easy visualization of outcomes, and may stratify BC progression more robustly than hierarchical clustering.Entities:
Keywords: Bladder cancer; Kohonen self-organizing map; molecular markers; progression
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25142434 PMCID: PMC4302672 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.217
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Med ISSN: 2045-7634 Impact factor: 4.452
Genetic tests results, recurrence, and progression rate
| Overall | Kaplan–Meier analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recurrence | Progression | ||||
| Rate | Log–rank value | Rate | Log–rank value | ||
| Total | 104 (100) | ||||
| Yes | 7 (6.7) | 2 | 2 | ||
| No | 97 (93.3) | 22 | 13 | ||
| Yes | 39 (37.5) | 10 | 5 | ||
| No | 65 (62.5) | 14 | 10 | ||
| Yes | 15 (14.4) | 5 | 11 | ||
| No | 89 (85.6) | 19 | 4 | ||
| TP53 expression | |||||
| Altered | 29 (27.9) | 2 | 4 | ||
| Normal | 75 (72.1) | 22 | 11 | ||
| Chromosome 9 | |||||
| LOH | 33 (31.7) | 5 | 5 | ||
| No | 71 (68.3) | 19 | 10 | ||
| Chromosome 13 | |||||
| LOH | 6 (5.8) | 0 | 1 | ||
| No | 98 (94.2) | 24 | 14 | ||
| Chromosome 17 | |||||
| LOH | 12 (11.5 | 4 | 2 | ||
| No | 92 (88.5) | 20 | 13 | ||
| UroVysion test | |||||
| Positive | 74 (71.2) | 16 | 11 | ||
| Negative | 30 (28.8) | 8 | 4 | ||
| 148G/A | 7 (6.7) | 0 | 2 | ||
| 148G/G | 97 (93.3) | 24 | 13 | ||
| 355T/T | 14 (13.5) | 4 | 5 | ||
| 355G/T | 46 (42.2) | 10 | 9 | ||
| 355G/G | 44 (55.7) | 10 | 10 | ||
| 72G/G | 55 (52.9) | 10 | 10 | ||
| 72G/C | 41 (39.4) | 10 | 5 | ||
| 72C/C | 8 (7.7) | 4 | 0 | ||
| HPV DNA detected | |||||
| Yes | 14 (13.5) | 3 | 1 | ||
| No | 90 (86.5) | 21 | 13 | ||
Figure 1Hierarchical clustering of samples.
Figure 2Pathological and molecular features of the individual tumors in this report. No patients were assigned to the nonlisted SOM neurons (B1, B3, C2-C4 and D2; see Fig. 4).
Figure 4The output layer of the self organizing map applied. Clusters X, Y, and subclusters (X1, X2, Y1, and Y2) of virtual patients and respective output neurons have been identified on the basis of the hierarchical cluster analysis.
Figure 3Recurrence and progression following treatment stratified using a self-organizing map.
Results of the Kohonen SOM classifier (ns, not significant, *Kruskal–Wallis, **Tichý and Chytrý)
| Variables | Subcluster | Subcluster | Subcluster | Subcluster | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X1 | X2 | Y1 | Y2 | ||
| Total No of patients | 24 (23.0) | 28 (27.0) | 24 (23.0) | 28 (27.0) | |
| Mean age | 64 | 75.5 | 70.5 | 69 | |
| No female | 2 | 4 | 5 | 1 | |
| Grade | |||||
| G1 | 10 (41.7) | 13 (46.4) | 19 (79.2) | 18 (64.3) | <0.001* |
| G2-3 | 14 (58.3) | 15 (53.6) | 5 (12.5) | 10 (21.4) | |
| Stage | |||||
| Ta | 16 (66.7) | 15 (53.6) | 19 (79.2) | 20 (71.4) | ns* |
| T1 | 3 (12.5) | 8 (28.6) | 5 (20.8) | 5 (17.9) | |
| T2–T4 | 5 (20.8) | 5 (17.8) | 0 | 3 (10.7) | |
| Smoking history | |||||
| Current and ex | 24 (100) | 26 (92.9) | 22 (91.7) | 27 (96.4) | ns** |
| Never | 0 | 2 (7.1) | 2(8.3) | 1 (3.6) | |
| Occupational exp. | |||||
| Yes | 9 (37.5) | 9 (32.1) | 9 (37.5) | 12 (42.9) | ns** |
| No | 15 (62.5) | 19 (67.9) | 15 (62.5) | 16 (57.1) | |
| No of tumors | |||||
| 1 | 18 (75.0) | 18 (64.3) | 17 (63.0) | 21 (75.0) | ns* |
| >1 | 6 (25.0) | 10 (35.7) | 7 (37.0) | 7 (25.0) | |
| Tumor diameter | |||||
| 2 cm | 10 (41.7) | 7 (25.0) | 19 (79.2) | 18 (64.3) | <0.001* |
| >2 cm | 14 (58.3) | 21 (75.0) | 5 (20.8) | 10 (35.7) | |
| Local recurrence | |||||
| Yes | 5 (21.0) | 7 (25.0) | 7 (29.2) | 5 (17.9) | ns** |
| No | 19 (79.0) | 21 (75.0) | 17 (70.8) | 23 (82.1) | |
| HPV infection | |||||
| Yes | 4 (16.6) | 4 (14.3) | 3 (12.5) | 3 (10.7) | ns** |
| No | 20 (83.4) | 24 (85.7) | 21 (87.5) | 25 (89.3) | |
| Yes | 2 (8.3) | 1 (3.6) | 1 (4.2) | 3 (10.7) | ns** |
| No | 22 (91.7) | 27 (96.4) | 23 (95.8) | 25 (89.3) | |
| Yes | 1 (4.2) | 1 (3.6) | 9 (37.5) | 28 (100) | <0.001** |
| No | 23 (95.8) | 2 | 15 (62.5) | 0 | |
| Yes | 5 (20.8) | 5 (17.9) | 0 | 5 (17.9) | ns** |
| No | 19 (79.2) | 23 (82.1) | 24 (100) | 23 (82.10 | |
| Altered | 1 (4.2) | 16 (57.1) | 1 (4.2) | 11 (39.3) | <0.01** |
| Normal | 23 (95.8) | 12 (42.9) | 23 (95.8) | 17 (60.7) | |
| LOH chromosome 9 | |||||
| Yes | 1 (4.2) | 17 (60.7) | 7 (37.0) | 8 (28.6) | <0.001** |
| No | 23 (95.8) | 11 (39.3) | 17 (63.0) | 20 (71.4) | |
| LOH chromosome 13 | |||||
| Yes | 1 (4.2) | 3 (10.7) | 2 (8.3) | 0 | ns** |
| No | 23 (95.8) | 25 (89.3) | 22 (91.7) | 28 (100) | |
| LOH chromosome 17 | |||||
| Yes | 2 (8.3) | 8 (28.6) | 0 | 2 (7.1) | <0.01** |
| No | 22 (91.7) | 20 (71.4) | 24 (100) | 26 (92.9) | |
| UroVysion test | |||||
| Positive | 24 (100) | 26 (92.9) | 0 | 24 (85.7) | <0.001** |
| Negative | 0 | 2 (7.1) | 24 (100) | 4 (14.3) | |
| Ala/Thr | 5 (20.8) | 1 (3.6) | 1 (4.2) | 0 | <0.05** |
| Ala/Ala | 19 (79.2) | 27 (96.4) | 23 (95.8) | 28 (100) | |
| 355T/T | 5 (20.8) | 3 (10.7) | 1 (4.2) | 5 (17.9) | ns** |
| 355T/T and T/G | 19 (79.2) | 25 (89.3) | 23 (95.8) | 23 (82.1) | |
| Arg | 16 (66.6) | 15 (53.6) | 13 (54.2) | 11 (39.3) | ns** |
| Arg/Pro | 7 (29.2) | 12 (42.9) | 9 (37.5) | 13 (46.4) | |
| Pro | 1 (4.2) | 1 (3.5) | 2 (8.3) | 4 (14.3) | |
Figure 5The associations (stronger if brighter red) of virtual patients' features with SOM regions. The intensity of colours is scaled independently for each variable. Variables with the same pattern over SOM are positively correlated. If the frequency of real patients with a given feature is significantly highest in any subcluster as compared to others, the symbol of the subcluster and the respective significance level (*P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001) are shown along with the variable name.