Donghai Dai1, Kristina W Thiel1, Erin A Salinas1, Michael J Goodheart2, Kimberly K Leslie2, Jesus Gonzalez Bosquet3. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, United States. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, United States; Holden Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, United States. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, United States. Electronic address: jesus-gonzalezbosquet@uiowa.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Patients with endometrioid endometrial cancer are stratified as high risk and low risk for extrauterine disease by surgical staging. Since patients with low-grade, minimally invasive disease do not benefit from comprehensive staging, pre-surgery stratification into a risk category may prevent unnecessary surgical staging in low risk patients. Our objective was to develop a predictive model to identify risk levels using somatic mutations that could be used preoperatively. METHODS: We classified endometrioid endometrial cancer patients in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) dataset into high risk and low risk categories: high risk patients presented with stage II, III or IV disease or stage I with high-intermediate risk features, whereas low risk patients consisted of the remaining stage I patients with either no myometrial invasion or low-intermediate risk features. Three strategies were used to build the prediction model: 1) mutational status for each gene; 2) number of somatic mutations for each gene; and 3) variant allele frequencies for each somatic mutation for each gene. RESULTS: Each prediction strategy had a good performance, with an area under the curve (or AUC) between 61% and 80%. Analysis of variant allele frequency produced a superior prediction model for risk levels of endometrial cancer as compared to the other two strategies, with an AUC=91%. Lasso and Ridge methods identified 53 mutations that together had the highest predictability for high risk endometrioid endometrial cancer. CONCLUSIONS: This prediction model will assist future retrospective and prospective studies to categorize endometrial cancer patients into high risk and low risk in the preoperative setting.
OBJECTIVE:Patients with endometrioid endometrial cancer are stratified as high risk and low risk for extrauterine disease by surgical staging. Since patients with low-grade, minimally invasive disease do not benefit from comprehensive staging, pre-surgery stratification into a risk category may prevent unnecessary surgical staging in low risk patients. Our objective was to develop a predictive model to identify risk levels using somatic mutations that could be used preoperatively. METHODS: We classified endometrioid endometrial cancerpatients in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) dataset into high risk and low risk categories: high risk patients presented with stage II, III or IV disease or stage I with high-intermediate risk features, whereas low risk patients consisted of the remaining stage I patients with either no myometrial invasion or low-intermediate risk features. Three strategies were used to build the prediction model: 1) mutational status for each gene; 2) number of somatic mutations for each gene; and 3) variant allele frequencies for each somatic mutation for each gene. RESULTS: Each prediction strategy had a good performance, with an area under the curve (or AUC) between 61% and 80%. Analysis of variant allele frequency produced a superior prediction model for risk levels of endometrial cancer as compared to the other two strategies, with an AUC=91%. Lasso and Ridge methods identified 53 mutations that together had the highest predictability for high risk endometrioid endometrial cancer. CONCLUSIONS: This prediction model will assist future retrospective and prospective studies to categorize endometrial cancerpatients into high risk and low risk in the preoperative setting.
Authors: Patricia A Convery; Leigh A Cantrell; Nicola Di Santo; Gloria Broadwater; Susan C Modesitt; Angeles Alvarez Secord; Laura J Havrilesky Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2011-07-13 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Ewout W Steyerberg; Andrew J Vickers; Nancy R Cook; Thomas Gerds; Mithat Gonen; Nancy Obuchowski; Michael J Pencina; Michael W Kattan Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Andrea Mariani; Sean C Dowdy; William A Cliby; Bobbie S Gostout; Monica B Jones; Timothy O Wilson; Karl C Podratz Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2008-03-04 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Muhammed Murtaza; Sarah-Jane Dawson; Katherine Pogrebniak; Oscar M Rueda; Elena Provenzano; John Grant; Suet-Feung Chin; Dana W Y Tsui; Francesco Marass; Davina Gale; H Raza Ali; Pankti Shah; Tania Contente-Cuomo; Hossein Farahani; Karey Shumansky; Zoya Kingsbury; Sean Humphray; David Bentley; Sohrab P Shah; Matthew Wallis; Nitzan Rosenfeld; Carlos Caldas Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2015-11-04 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Erin A Salinas; Marina D Miller; Andreea M Newtson; Deepti Sharma; Megan E McDonald; Matthew E Keeney; Brian J Smith; David P Bender; Michael J Goodheart; Kristina W Thiel; Eric J Devor; Kimberly K Leslie; Jesus Gonzalez Bosquet Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2019-03-09 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Jesus Gonzalez Bosquet; Eric J Devor; Andreea M Newtson; Brian J Smith; David P Bender; Michael J Goodheart; Megan E McDonald; Terry A Braun; Kristina W Thiel; Kimberly K Leslie Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-03-16 Impact factor: 4.379