Literature DB >> 25710538

Open access to large scale datasets is needed to translate knowledge of cancer heterogeneity into better patient outcomes.

Andrew H Beck1.   

Abstract

In this guest editorial, Andrew Beck discusses the importance of open access to big data for translating knowledge of cancer heterogeneity into better outcomes for cancer patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25710538      PMCID: PMC4339838          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001794

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS Med        ISSN: 1549-1277            Impact factor:   11.069


Cancer is a heterogeneous disease, which is comprised of a collection of diseases traditionally categorized by tissue type of origin. A distinct set of etiologic causes, treatments, and prognoses are associated with different cancers, and even within a given tissue type, cancer shows significant variability in molecular and clinical features across patients. This interpatient heterogeneity is a major rationale for large-scale research efforts (such as The Cancer Genome Atlas [TCGA] and the International Cancer Genome Consortium [ICGC]) to comprehensively profile the molecular landscape of patient cancer samples across all major cancers [1,2]. These efforts have been bolstered by the recent development of new genomic [3] and computational [4] technologies to enable increasingly detailed and comprehensive analyses of the molecular landscape of solid cancers. It is hoped that the comprehensive molecular characterization of large sets of cancer samples will lead to the identification of new therapeutic targets and the development of improved personalized therapies for cancer patients. A major challenge in cancer therapy is the development of resistance to molecularly targeted therapies. Although targeted therapies may show initial benefit in the subset of patients carrying a targeted molecular alteration, most patients will nevertheless go on to develop resistance for most advanced solid cancers. Identifying and overcoming drug resistance represents one of the most significant challenges facing cancer researchers today [5]. It is increasingly recognized that cancer is not only a heterogeneous disease across patients but also a heterogeneous disease within individual patients, with different regions of a tumor showing different molecular features at the DNA, RNA, and protein levels [6-9]. This intratumoral molecular heterogeneity is hypothesized to be a major cause of drug resistance and treatment failure in cancer [10]. However, the clinical significance of intratumoral molecular heterogeneity is not yet well-defined, and assessment of intratumoral molecular heterogeneity is not currently used in clinical cancer medicine for assessing disease prognosis or guiding therapy. Two recent research articles published in PLOS Medicine show the potential clinical utility of measuring intratumoral genetic heterogeneity in clinical cancer samples. In one, James Brenton, Florian Markowetz, and colleagues applied the Minimum Event Distance for Intra-tumour Copy-number Comparisons (MEDICC) algorithm they recently developed for phylogenetic quantification of intratumoral genetic heterogeneity from multiregion DNA copy number profiling data [11] to predict treatment resistance in high-grade serous ovarian cancer [12]. Their analysis suggests that multiregion tumor sampling, DNA copy number profiling, and quantification of intratumoral genetic heterogeneity with the MEDICC algorithm could be a useful approach for predicting patient survival in ovarian cancer, in which higher levels of heterogeneity associated with decreased survival. This study provides data to support the long-standing hypothesis regarding treatment resistance and intratumoral genetic heterogeneity [10]. Although these results are promising, the developed approach requires sampling multiple distinct regions of tumor, which would be more expensive and complex than molecular profiling from a single tissue sample. It is not yet known how much tumor sampling will be required to adequately quantify intratumoral heterogeneity in the clinic or if measuring intratumoral heterogeneity from multiple tumor samples will outperform other molecular approaches (e.g., prognostic expression signatures [13,14]) for predicting response to therapy in ovarian cancer. These are important research questions that will need to be answered prior to clinical translation. The second study comes from James Rocco and colleagues [15]. Previously, these investigators used a publicly available data set of whole exome sequencing data in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) from Stransky et al. [16] to develop a simple quantitative measure of intratumoral heterogeneity (mutant-allele tumor heterogeneity [MATH]) and showed that MATH scores were higher in poor outcome classes of HNSCC [17]. In the current study, the authors used publicly available whole exome sequencing data provided by TCGA and showed that the MATH score is associated with prognosis in HNSCC and contributes additional prognostic information beyond that provided by traditional clinical and molecular features. Since the MATH score can be computed from whole exome sequencing data obtained from a single tumor sample (which is a data type that can be obtained from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor tissue, as is routinely collected in pathology laboratories [18]), this approach may be more easily translated into clinical use, as compared with approaches requiring multiregion sampling and more complex computational algorithms for the assessment of intratumoral heterogeneity. Nonetheless, establishing the utility of the MATH score as an effective prognostic and/or predictive biomarker in HNSCC will require additional studies of the MATH score on well-controlled clinical cohorts comprised of homogeneously treated patients with tumors at specific head and neck anatomic locations. It is important to note that the development and application of MATH for assessing prognosis in HNSCC was based entirely on the analysis of publically available clinically annotated whole exome sequencing data, which demonstrates the value in making these data open to the community. The continuing generation of high-quality, open-access Omics data sets from large populations of cancer patients will be critically important to enable the development of computational methods to translate knowledge of cancer heterogeneity into new diagnostics and improved clinical outcomes for cancer patients. As one step towards this goal, the DREAM (Dialogue for Reverse Engineering Assessments and Methods) consortium will use open innovation crowd sourcing to identify top-performing computational methods for inferring genetic heterogeneity from next-generation sequencing data provided by a large multi-institutional community of cancer genomics projects, including the ICGC and TCGA [19]. If successful, this open innovation competition may identify a set of best-in-class methods for measuring intratumoral genetic heterogeneity in cancer. In parallel with these advances in computational methods for inferring intratumoral heterogeneity from genomics data, genomics technologies for measuring intratumoral heterogeneity at increasingly fine levels of granularity continue to improve. For example, recent advances in single-cell sequencing of DNA have provided detailed portraits of intratumoral genetic heterogeneity and clonal evolution in cancer [20,21], and recent advances in single-cell RNA sequencing [22], in situ RNA sequencing [23,24], and highly multiplexed next-generation immunohistochemistry [25-28] enable characterization of intratumoral heterogeneity in gene expression at a single cell level with subcellular resolution. Thus, there are now many options—both molecular and computational—for measuring and analyzing intratumoral molecular heterogeneity from clinical cancer samples. Establishing the clinical utility of these new approaches for measuring intratumoral molecular heterogeneity will require applying these methods to large sets of archival tumor samples from randomized trials of cancer therapeutics [29] and high-quality prospective observational studies [30]. To maximize the value of the data that would be produced from such an undertaking, it is critical that infrastructure be created and supported to enable sharing of the Omics and clinical data with a large community of cancer researchers and data scientists. Ensuring open access to high-quality datasets will ensure that the largest possible community of researchers is able to address the most important problems in cancer medicine today. And in generating and sharing these data widely, we will massively increase our chances of effectively translating knowledge of intratumoral heterogeneity into meaningful advances for cancer patients.
  29 in total

1.  Single-cell RNA-seq highlights intratumoral heterogeneity in primary glioblastoma.

Authors:  Anoop P Patel; Itay Tirosh; John J Trombetta; Alex K Shalek; Shawn M Gillespie; Hiroaki Wakimoto; Daniel P Cahill; Brian V Nahed; William T Curry; Robert L Martuza; David N Louis; Orit Rozenblatt-Rosen; Mario L Suvà; Aviv Regev; Bradley E Bernstein
Journal:  Science       Date:  2014-06-12       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 2.  Lessons from the cancer genome.

Authors:  Levi A Garraway; Eric S Lander
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2013-03-28       Impact factor: 41.582

3.  MATH, a novel measure of intratumor genetic heterogeneity, is high in poor-outcome classes of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Edmund A Mroz; James W Rocco
Journal:  Oral Oncol       Date:  2012-10-15       Impact factor: 5.337

Review 4.  Expanding the computational toolbox for mining cancer genomes.

Authors:  Li Ding; Michael C Wendl; Joshua F McMichael; Benjamin J Raphael
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2014-07-08       Impact factor: 53.242

5.  Highly multiplexed single-cell analysis of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded cancer tissue.

Authors:  Michael J Gerdes; Christopher J Sevinsky; Anup Sood; Sudeshna Adak; Musodiq O Bello; Alexander Bordwell; Ali Can; Alex Corwin; Sean Dinn; Robert J Filkins; Denise Hollman; Vidya Kamath; Sireesha Kaanumalle; Kevin Kenny; Melinda Larsen; Michael Lazare; Qing Li; Christina Lowes; Colin C McCulloch; Elizabeth McDonough; Michael C Montalto; Zhengyu Pang; Jens Rittscher; Alberto Santamaria-Pang; Brion D Sarachan; Maximilian L Seel; Antti Seppo; Kashan Shaikh; Yunxia Sui; Jingyu Zhang; Fiona Ginty
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-07-01       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Risk prediction for late-stage ovarian cancer by meta-analysis of 1525 patient samples.

Authors:  Markus Riester; Wei Wei; Levi Waldron; Aedin C Culhane; Lorenzo Trippa; Esther Oliva; Sung-Hoon Kim; Franziska Michor; Curtis Huttenhower; Giovanni Parmigiani; Michael J Birrer
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2014-04-03       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 7.  Tumour heterogeneity and the evolution of polyclonal drug resistance.

Authors:  Rebecca A Burrell; Charles Swanton
Journal:  Mol Oncol       Date:  2014-07-10       Impact factor: 6.603

8.  Whole-exome sequencing and clinical interpretation of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor samples to guide precision cancer medicine.

Authors:  Eliezer M Van Allen; Nikhil Wagle; Petar Stojanov; Danielle L Perrin; Kristian Cibulskis; Sara Marlow; Judit Jane-Valbuena; Dennis C Friedrich; Gregory Kryukov; Scott L Carter; Aaron McKenna; Andrey Sivachenko; Mara Rosenberg; Adam Kiezun; Douglas Voet; Michael Lawrence; Lee T Lichtenstein; Jeff G Gentry; Franklin W Huang; Jennifer Fostel; Deborah Farlow; David Barbie; Leena Gandhi; Eric S Lander; Stacy W Gray; Steven Joffe; Pasi Janne; Judy Garber; Laura MacConaill; Neal Lindeman; Barrett Rollins; Philip Kantoff; Sheila A Fisher; Stacey Gabriel; Gad Getz; Levi A Garraway
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2014-05-18       Impact factor: 53.440

Review 9.  Cancer genomics: one cell at a time.

Authors:  Nicholas E Navin
Journal:  Genome Biol       Date:  2014-08-30       Impact factor: 13.583

10.  Spatial and temporal diversity in genomic instability processes defines lung cancer evolution.

Authors:  Elza C de Bruin; Nicholas McGranahan; Richard Mitter; Max Salm; David C Wedge; Lucy Yates; Mariam Jamal-Hanjani; Seema Shafi; Nirupa Murugaesu; Andrew J Rowan; Eva Grönroos; Madiha A Muhammad; Stuart Horswell; Marco Gerlinger; Ignacio Varela; David Jones; John Marshall; Thierry Voet; Peter Van Loo; Doris M Rassl; Robert C Rintoul; Sam M Janes; Siow-Ming Lee; Martin Forster; Tanya Ahmad; David Lawrence; Mary Falzon; Arrigo Capitanio; Timothy T Harkins; Clarence C Lee; Warren Tom; Enock Teefe; Shann-Ching Chen; Sharmin Begum; Adam Rabinowitz; Benjamin Phillimore; Bradley Spencer-Dene; Gordon Stamp; Zoltan Szallasi; Nik Matthews; Aengus Stewart; Peter Campbell; Charles Swanton
Journal:  Science       Date:  2014-10-10       Impact factor: 47.728

View more
  8 in total

Review 1.  Report on computational assessment of Tumor Infiltrating Lymphocytes from the International Immuno-Oncology Biomarker Working Group.

Authors:  Mohamed Amgad; Elisabeth Specht Stovgaard; Eva Balslev; Jeppe Thagaard; Weijie Chen; Sarah Dudgeon; Ashish Sharma; Jennifer K Kerner; Carsten Denkert; Yinyin Yuan; Khalid AbdulJabbar; Stephan Wienert; Peter Savas; Leonie Voorwerk; Andrew H Beck; Anant Madabhushi; Johan Hartman; Manu M Sebastian; Hugo M Horlings; Jan Hudeček; Francesco Ciompi; David A Moore; Rajendra Singh; Elvire Roblin; Marcelo Luiz Balancin; Marie-Christine Mathieu; Jochen K Lennerz; Pawan Kirtani; I-Chun Chen; Jeremy P Braybrooke; Giancarlo Pruneri; Sandra Demaria; Sylvia Adams; Stuart J Schnitt; Sunil R Lakhani; Federico Rojo; Laura Comerma; Sunil S Badve; Mehrnoush Khojasteh; W Fraser Symmans; Christos Sotiriou; Paula Gonzalez-Ericsson; Katherine L Pogue-Geile; Rim S Kim; David L Rimm; Giuseppe Viale; Stephen M Hewitt; John M S Bartlett; Frédérique Penault-Llorca; Shom Goel; Huang-Chun Lien; Sibylle Loibl; Zuzana Kos; Sherene Loi; Matthew G Hanna; Stefan Michiels; Marleen Kok; Torsten O Nielsen; Alexander J Lazar; Zsuzsanna Bago-Horvath; Loes F S Kooreman; Jeroen A W M van der Laak; Joel Saltz; Brandon D Gallas; Uday Kurkure; Michael Barnes; Roberto Salgado; Lee A D Cooper
Journal:  NPJ Breast Cancer       Date:  2020-05-12

2.  Exploring Web-Based Twitter Conversations Surrounding National Healthcare Decisions Day and Advance Care Planning From a Sociocultural Perspective: Computational Mixed Methods Analysis.

Authors:  Tahleen A Lattimer; Kelly E Tenzek; Yotam Ophir; Suzanne S Sullivan
Journal:  JMIR Form Res       Date:  2022-04-13

3.  HFBSurv: Hierarchical multimodal fusion with factorized bilinear models for cancer survival prediction.

Authors:  Ruiqing Li; Xingqi Wu; Ao Li; Minghui Wang
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2022-02-21       Impact factor: 6.931

4.  Intra-Gene DNA Methylation Variability Is a Clinically Independent Prognostic Marker in Women's Cancers.

Authors:  Thomas E Bartlett; Allison Jones; Ellen L Goode; Brooke L Fridley; Julie M Cunningham; Els M J J Berns; Elisabeth Wik; Helga B Salvesen; Ben Davidson; Claes G Trope; Sandrina Lambrechts; Ignace Vergote; Martin Widschwendter
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-12-02       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Multidimensional integrative analysis uncovers driver candidates and biomarkers in penile carcinoma.

Authors:  Fabio Albuquerque Marchi; David Correa Martins; Mateus Camargo Barros-Filho; Hellen Kuasne; Ariane Fidelis Busso Lopes; Helena Brentani; Jose Carlos Souza Trindade Filho; Gustavo Cardoso Guimarães; Eliney F Faria; Cristovam Scapulatempo-Neto; Ademar Lopes; Silvia Regina Rogatto
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-07-27       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Clinical Implications of Cancer Genomics: A Call for Papers.

Authors: 
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2016-04-26       Impact factor: 11.069

7.  Moving Beyond "Food Deserts": Reorienting United States Policies to Reduce Disparities in Diet Quality.

Authors:  Jason P Block; S V Subramanian
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2015-12-08       Impact factor: 11.069

Review 8.  Report on computational assessment of Tumor Infiltrating Lymphocytes from the International Immuno-Oncology Biomarker Working Group.

Authors:  Mohamed Amgad; Elisabeth Specht Stovgaard; Eva Balslev; Jeppe Thagaard; Weijie Chen; Sarah Dudgeon; Ashish Sharma; Jennifer K Kerner; Carsten Denkert; Yinyin Yuan; Khalid AbdulJabbar; Stephan Wienert; Peter Savas; Leonie Voorwerk; Andrew H Beck; Anant Madabhushi; Johan Hartman; Manu M Sebastian; Hugo M Horlings; Jan Hudeček; Francesco Ciompi; David A Moore; Rajendra Singh; Elvire Roblin; Marcelo Luiz Balancin; Marie-Christine Mathieu; Jochen K Lennerz; Pawan Kirtani; I-Chun Chen; Jeremy P Braybrooke; Giancarlo Pruneri; Sandra Demaria; Sylvia Adams; Stuart J Schnitt; Sunil R Lakhani; Federico Rojo; Laura Comerma; Sunil S Badve; Mehrnoush Khojasteh; W Fraser Symmans; Christos Sotiriou; Paula Gonzalez-Ericsson; Katherine L Pogue-Geile; Rim S Kim; David L Rimm; Giuseppe Viale; Stephen M Hewitt; John M S Bartlett; Frédérique Penault-Llorca; Shom Goel; Huang-Chun Lien; Sibylle Loibl; Zuzana Kos; Sherene Loi; Matthew G Hanna; Stefan Michiels; Marleen Kok; Torsten O Nielsen; Alexander J Lazar; Zsuzsanna Bago-Horvath; Loes F S Kooreman; Jeroen A W M van der Laak; Joel Saltz; Brandon D Gallas; Uday Kurkure; Michael Barnes; Roberto Salgado; Lee A D Cooper
Journal:  NPJ Breast Cancer       Date:  2020-05-12
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.