F Commo1, C Ferté2, J C Soria3, S H Friend4, F André3, J Guinney5. 1. Sage Bionetworks, Seattle, USA INSERM U981, Gustave Roussy, University Paris XI, Villejuif. 2. Sage Bionetworks, Seattle, USA INSERM U981, Gustave Roussy, University Paris XI, Villejuif Department of Medical Oncology, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France. 3. INSERM U981, Gustave Roussy, University Paris XI, Villejuif Department of Medical Oncology, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France. 4. Sage Bionetworks, Seattle, USA. 5. Sage Bionetworks, Seattle, USA justin.guinney@sagebase.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) arrays are increasingly used in personalized medicine programs to identify gene copy number aberrations (CNAs) that may be used to guide clinical decisions made during molecular tumor boards. However, analytical processes such as the centralization step may profoundly affect CGH array results and therefore may adversely affect outcomes in the precision medicine context. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The effect of three different centralization methods: median, maximum peak, alternative peak, were evaluated on three datasets: (i) the NCI60 cell lines panel, (ii) the Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia (CCLE) panel, and (iii) the patients enrolled in prospective molecular screening trials (SAFIR-01 n = 283, MOSCATO-01 n = 309), and compared with karyotyping, drug sensitivity, and patient-drug matching, respectively. RESULTS: Using the NCI60 cell lines panel, the profiles generated by the alternative peak method were significantly closer to the cell karyotypes than those generated by the other centralization strategies (P < 0.05). Using the CCLE dataset, selected genes (ERBB2, EGFR) were better or equally correlated to the IC50 of their companion drug (lapatinib, erlotinib), when applying the alternative centralization. Finally, focusing on 24 actionable genes, we observed as many as 7.1% (SAFIR-01) and 6.8% (MOSCATO-01) of patients originally not oriented to a specific treatment, but who could have been proposed a treatment based on the alternative peak centralization method. CONCLUSION: The centralization method substantially affects the call detection of CGH profiles and may thus impact precision medicine approaches. Among the three methods described, the alternative peak method addresses limitations associated with existing approaches.
BACKGROUND: Comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) arrays are increasingly used in personalized medicine programs to identify gene copy number aberrations (CNAs) that may be used to guide clinical decisions made during molecular tumor boards. However, analytical processes such as the centralization step may profoundly affect CGH array results and therefore may adversely affect outcomes in the precision medicine context. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The effect of three different centralization methods: median, maximum peak, alternative peak, were evaluated on three datasets: (i) the NCI60 cell lines panel, (ii) the Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia (CCLE) panel, and (iii) the patients enrolled in prospective molecular screening trials (SAFIR-01 n = 283, MOSCATO-01 n = 309), and compared with karyotyping, drug sensitivity, and patient-drug matching, respectively. RESULTS: Using the NCI60 cell lines panel, the profiles generated by the alternative peak method were significantly closer to the cell karyotypes than those generated by the other centralization strategies (P < 0.05). Using the CCLE dataset, selected genes (ERBB2, EGFR) were better or equally correlated to the IC50 of their companion drug (lapatinib, erlotinib), when applying the alternative centralization. Finally, focusing on 24 actionable genes, we observed as many as 7.1% (SAFIR-01) and 6.8% (MOSCATO-01) of patients originally not oriented to a specific treatment, but who could have been proposed a treatment based on the alternative peak centralization method. CONCLUSION: The centralization method substantially affects the call detection of CGH profiles and may thus impact precision medicine approaches. Among the three methods described, the alternative peak method addresses limitations associated with existing approaches.
Authors: Fabrice André; Thomas Bachelot; Mario Campone; Florence Dalenc; Jose M Perez-Garcia; Sara A Hurvitz; Nicholas Turner; Hope Rugo; John W Smith; Stephanie Deudon; Michael Shi; Yong Zhang; Andrea Kay; Diana Graus Porta; Alejandro Yovine; José Baselga Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2013-05-08 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Pierre Laurent-Puig; Anne Cayre; Gilles Manceau; Emmanuel Buc; Jean-Baptiste Bachet; Thierry Lecomte; Philippe Rougier; Astrid Lievre; Bruno Landi; Valérie Boige; Michel Ducreux; Marc Ychou; Fréderic Bibeau; Olivier Bouché; Julia Reid; Steven Stone; Frédérique Penault-Llorca Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-11-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jakob Lovén; David A Orlando; Alla A Sigova; Charles Y Lin; Peter B Rahl; Christopher B Burge; David L Levens; Tong Ihn Lee; Richard A Young Journal: Cell Date: 2012-10-26 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Craig H Mermel; Steven E Schumacher; Barbara Hill; Matthew L Meyerson; Rameen Beroukhim; Gad Getz Journal: Genome Biol Date: 2011-04-28 Impact factor: 13.583
Authors: Mathew J Garnett; Elena J Edelman; Sonja J Heidorn; Chris D Greenman; Anahita Dastur; King Wai Lau; Patricia Greninger; I Richard Thompson; Xi Luo; Jorge Soares; Qingsong Liu; Francesco Iorio; Didier Surdez; Li Chen; Randy J Milano; Graham R Bignell; Ah T Tam; Helen Davies; Jesse A Stevenson; Syd Barthorpe; Stephen R Lutz; Fiona Kogera; Karl Lawrence; Anne McLaren-Douglas; Xeni Mitropoulos; Tatiana Mironenko; Helen Thi; Laura Richardson; Wenjun Zhou; Frances Jewitt; Tinghu Zhang; Patrick O'Brien; Jessica L Boisvert; Stacey Price; Wooyoung Hur; Wanjuan Yang; Xianming Deng; Adam Butler; Hwan Geun Choi; Jae Won Chang; Jose Baselga; Ivan Stamenkovic; Jeffrey A Engelman; Sreenath V Sharma; Olivier Delattre; Julio Saez-Rodriguez; Nathanael S Gray; Jeffrey Settleman; P Andrew Futreal; Daniel A Haber; Michael R Stratton; Sridhar Ramaswamy; Ultan McDermott; Cyril H Benes Journal: Nature Date: 2012-03-28 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Bart P P van Houte; Thomas W Binsl; Hannes Hettling; Walter Pirovano; Jaap Heringa Journal: BMC Genomics Date: 2009-08-26 Impact factor: 3.969
Authors: Mariano J Alvarez; Prem S Subramaniam; Laura H Tang; Adina Grunn; Mahalaxmi Aburi; Gabrielle Rieckhof; Elena V Komissarova; Elizabeth A Hagan; Lisa Bodei; Paul A Clemons; Filemon S Dela Cruz; Deepti Dhall; Daniel Diolaiti; Douglas A Fraker; Afshin Ghavami; Daniel Kaemmerer; Charles Karan; Mark Kidd; Kyoung M Kim; Hee C Kim; Lakshmi P Kunju; Ülo Langel; Zhong Li; Jeeyun Lee; Hai Li; Virginia LiVolsi; Roswitha Pfragner; Allison R Rainey; Ronald B Realubit; Helen Remotti; Jakob Regberg; Robert Roses; Anil Rustgi; Antonia R Sepulveda; Stefano Serra; Chanjuan Shi; Xiaopu Yuan; Massimo Barberis; Roberto Bergamaschi; Arul M Chinnaiyan; Tony Detre; Shereen Ezzat; Andrea Frilling; Merten Hommann; Dirk Jaeger; Michelle K Kim; Beatrice S Knudsen; Andrew L Kung; Emer Leahy; David C Metz; Jeffrey W Milsom; Young S Park; Diane Reidy-Lagunes; Stuart Schreiber; Kay Washington; Bertram Wiedenmann; Irvin Modlin; Andrea Califano Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2018-06-18 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Karin M Hardiman; Peter J Ulintz; Rork D Kuick; Daniel H Hovelson; Christopher M Gates; Ashwini Bhasi; Ana Rodrigues Grant; Jianhua Liu; Andi K Cani; Joel K Greenson; Scott A Tomlins; Eric R Fearon Journal: Lab Invest Date: 2015-11-16 Impact factor: 5.662