Justin Guinney1, Tao Wang2, Teemu D Laajala3, Kimberly Kanigel Winner4, J Christopher Bare1, Elias Chaibub Neto1, Suleiman A Khan5, Gopal Peddinti5, Antti Airola6, Tapio Pahikkala6, Tuomas Mirtti7, Thomas Yu1, Brian M Bot1, Liji Shen8, Kald Abdallah9, Thea Norman1, Stephen Friend1, Gustavo Stolovitzky10, Howard Soule11, Christopher J Sweeney12, Charles J Ryan13, Howard I Scher14, Oliver Sartor15, Yang Xie16, Tero Aittokallio3, Fang Liz Zhou8, James C Costello17. 1. Sage Bionetworks, Seattle, WA, USA. 2. Quantitative Biomedical Research Center, Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA; Center for the Genetics of Host Defense, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA. 3. Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Turku, Turku, Finland; Institute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland. 4. Department of Pharmacology and Computational Biosciences Program, University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA. 5. Institute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland. 6. Department of Information Technology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland. 7. Institute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland; Department of Pathology (HUSLAB), Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland. 8. Sanofi, Bridgewater, NJ, USA. 9. AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, USA. 10. IBM T J Watson Research Center, IBM, Yorktown Heights, NY, USA. 11. Prostate Cancer Foundation, Santa Monica, CA, USA. 12. Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 13. Genitourinary Medical Oncology Program, Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. 14. Genitourinary Oncology Services, Department of Medicine, Sidney Kimmel Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. 15. Tulane Cancer Center, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, USA. 16. Quantitative Biomedical Research Center, Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA; The Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA; Lyda Hill Department of Bioinformatics, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA. 17. Department of Pharmacology and Computational Biosciences Program, University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA; University of Colorado Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA. Electronic address: james.costello@ucdenver.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Improvements to prognostic models in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer have the potential to augment clinical trial design and guide treatment strategies. In partnership with Project Data Sphere, a not-for-profit initiative allowing data from cancer clinical trials to be shared broadly with researchers, we designed an open-data, crowdsourced, DREAM (Dialogue for Reverse Engineering Assessments and Methods) challenge to not only identify a better prognostic model for prediction of survival in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer but also engage a community of international data scientists to study this disease. METHODS: Data from the comparator arms of four phase 3 clinical trials in first-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were obtained from Project Data Sphere, comprising 476 patients treated withdocetaxel and prednisone from the ASCENT2 trial, 526 patients treated withdocetaxel, prednisone, and placebo in the MAINSAIL trial, 598 patients treated withdocetaxel, prednisone or prednisolone, and placebo in the VENICE trial, and 470 patients treated withdocetaxel and placebo in the ENTHUSE 33 trial. Datasets consisting of more than 150 clinical variables were curated centrally, including demographics, laboratory values, medical history, lesion sites, and previous treatments. Data from ASCENT2, MAINSAIL, and VENICE were released publicly to be used as training data to predict the outcome of interest-namely, overall survival. Clinical data were also released for ENTHUSE 33, but data for outcome variables (overall survival and event status) were hidden from the challenge participants so that ENTHUSE 33 could be used for independent validation. Methods were evaluated using the integrated time-dependent area under the curve (iAUC). The reference model, based on eight clinical variables and a penalised Cox proportional-hazards model, was used to compare method performance. Further validation was done using data from a fifth trial-ENTHUSE M1-in which 266 patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were treated with placebo alone. FINDINGS: 50 independent methods were developed to predict overall survival and were evaluated through the DREAM challenge. The top performer was based on an ensemble of penalised Cox regression models (ePCR), which uniquely identified predictive interaction effects with immune biomarkers and markers of hepatic and renal function. Overall, ePCR outperformed all other methods (iAUC 0·791; Bayes factor >5) and surpassed the reference model (iAUC 0·743; Bayes factor >20). Both the ePCR model and reference models stratified patients in the ENTHUSE 33 trial into high-risk and low-risk groups with significantly different overall survival (ePCR: hazard ratio 3·32, 95% CI 2·39-4·62, p<0·0001; reference model: 2·56, 1·85-3·53, p<0·0001). The new model was validated further on the ENTHUSE M1 cohort with similarly high performance (iAUC 0·768). Meta-analysis across all methods confirmed previously identified predictive clinical variables and revealed aspartate aminotransferase as an important, albeit previously under-reported, prognostic biomarker. INTERPRETATION: Novel prognostic factors were delineated, and the assessment of 50 methods developed by independent international teams establishes a benchmark for development of methods in the future. The results of this effort show that data-sharing, when combined with a crowdsourced challenge, is a robust and powerful framework to develop new prognostic models in advanced prostate cancer. FUNDING: Sanofi US Services, Project Data Sphere.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Improvements to prognostic models in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer have the potential to augment clinical trial design and guide treatment strategies. In partnership with Project Data Sphere, a not-for-profit initiative allowing data from cancer clinical trials to be shared broadly with researchers, we designed an open-data, crowdsourced, DREAM (Dialogue for Reverse Engineering Assessments and Methods) challenge to not only identify a better prognostic model for prediction of survival in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer but also engage a community of international data scientists to study this disease. METHODS: Data from the comparator arms of four phase 3 clinical trials in first-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were obtained from Project Data Sphere, comprising 476 patients treated with docetaxel and prednisone from the ASCENT2 trial, 526 patients treated with docetaxel, prednisone, and placebo in the MAINSAIL trial, 598 patients treated with docetaxel, prednisone or prednisolone, and placebo in the VENICE trial, and 470 patients treated with docetaxel and placebo in the ENTHUSE 33 trial. Datasets consisting of more than 150 clinical variables were curated centrally, including demographics, laboratory values, medical history, lesion sites, and previous treatments. Data from ASCENT2, MAINSAIL, and VENICE were released publicly to be used as training data to predict the outcome of interest-namely, overall survival. Clinical data were also released for ENTHUSE 33, but data for outcome variables (overall survival and event status) were hidden from the challenge participants so that ENTHUSE 33 could be used for independent validation. Methods were evaluated using the integrated time-dependent area under the curve (iAUC). The reference model, based on eight clinical variables and a penalised Cox proportional-hazards model, was used to compare method performance. Further validation was done using data from a fifth trial-ENTHUSE M1-in which 266 patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were treated with placebo alone. FINDINGS: 50 independent methods were developed to predict overall survival and were evaluated through the DREAM challenge. The top performer was based on an ensemble of penalised Cox regression models (ePCR), which uniquely identified predictive interaction effects with immune biomarkers and markers of hepatic and renal function. Overall, ePCR outperformed all other methods (iAUC 0·791; Bayes factor >5) and surpassed the reference model (iAUC 0·743; Bayes factor >20). Both the ePCR model and reference models stratified patients in the ENTHUSE 33 trial into high-risk and low-risk groups with significantly different overall survival (ePCR: hazard ratio 3·32, 95% CI 2·39-4·62, p<0·0001; reference model: 2·56, 1·85-3·53, p<0·0001). The new model was validated further on the ENTHUSE M1 cohort with similarly high performance (iAUC 0·768). Meta-analysis across all methods confirmed previously identified predictive clinical variables and revealed aspartate aminotransferase as an important, albeit previously under-reported, prognostic biomarker. INTERPRETATION: Novel prognostic factors were delineated, and the assessment of 50 methods developed by independent international teams establishes a benchmark for development of methods in the future. The results of this effort show that data-sharing, when combined with a crowdsourced challenge, is a robust and powerful framework to develop new prognostic models in advanced prostate cancer. FUNDING: Sanofi US Services, Project Data Sphere.
Authors: Susan Halabi; Chen-Yen Lin; W Kevin Kelly; Karim S Fizazi; Judd W Moul; Ellen B Kaplan; Michael J Morris; Eric J Small Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-01-21 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Julio Saez-Rodriguez; James C Costello; Stephen H Friend; Michael R Kellen; Lara Mangravite; Pablo Meyer; Thea Norman; Gustavo Stolovitzky Journal: Nat Rev Genet Date: 2016-07-15 Impact factor: 53.242
Authors: Howard I Scher; Xiaoyu Jia; Kim Chi; Ronald de Wit; William R Berry; Peter Albers; Brian Henick; David Waterhouse; Dean J Ruether; Peter J Rosen; Anthony A Meluch; Luke T Nordquist; Peter M Venner; Axel Heidenreich; Luis Chu; Glenn Heller Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-04-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Howard I Scher; Karim Fizazi; Fred Saad; Mary-Ellen Taplin; Cora N Sternberg; Kurt Miller; Ronald de Wit; Peter Mulders; Kim N Chi; Neal D Shore; Andrew J Armstrong; Thomas W Flaig; Aude Fléchon; Paul Mainwaring; Mark Fleming; John D Hainsworth; Mohammad Hirmand; Bryan Selby; Lynn Seely; Johann S de Bono Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-08-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Adam A Margolin; Erhan Bilal; Erich Huang; Thea C Norman; Lars Ottestad; Brigham H Mecham; Ben Sauerwine; Michael R Kellen; Lara M Mangravite; Matthew D Furia; Hans Kristian Moen Vollan; Oscar M Rueda; Justin Guinney; Nicole A Deflaux; Bruce Hoff; Xavier Schildwachter; Hege G Russnes; Daehoon Park; Veronica O Vang; Tyler Pirtle; Lamia Youseff; Craig Citro; Christina Curtis; Vessela N Kristensen; Joseph Hellerstein; Stephen H Friend; Gustavo Stolovitzky; Samuel Aparicio; Carlos Caldas; Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2013-04-17 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Daniel K Wells; Marit M van Buuren; Kristen K Dang; Vanessa M Hubbard-Lucey; Kathleen C F Sheehan; Katie M Campbell; Andrew Lamb; Jeffrey P Ward; John Sidney; Ana B Blazquez; Andrew J Rech; Jesse M Zaretsky; Begonya Comin-Anduix; Alphonsus H C Ng; William Chour; Thomas V Yu; Hira Rizvi; Jia M Chen; Patrice Manning; Gabriela M Steiner; Xengie C Doan; Taha Merghoub; Justin Guinney; Adam Kolom; Cheryl Selinsky; Antoni Ribas; Matthew D Hellmann; Nir Hacohen; Alessandro Sette; James R Heath; Nina Bhardwaj; Fred Ramsdell; Robert D Schreiber; Ton N Schumacher; Pia Kvistborg; Nadine A Defranoux Journal: Cell Date: 2020-10-09 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Oscar Brück; Olli Dufva; Helena Hohtari; Sami Blom; Riku Turkki; Mette Ilander; Panu Kovanen; Celine Pallaud; Pedro Marques Ramos; Hanna Lähteenmäki; Katja Välimäki; Mohamed El Missiry; Antonio Ribeiro; Olli Kallioniemi; Kimmo Porkka; Teijo Pellinen; Satu Mustjoki Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2020-01-28
Authors: Vallari Shah; David C Johnson; Amy L Sherborne; Sidra Ellis; Frances M Aldridge; Julie Howard-Reeves; Farzana Begum; Amy Price; Jack Kendall; Laura Chiecchio; Suvi Savola; Matthew W Jenner; Mark T Drayson; Roger G Owen; Walter M Gregory; Gareth J Morgan; Faith E Davies; Richard S Houlston; Gordon Cook; David A Cairns; Graham Jackson; Martin F Kaiser Journal: Blood Date: 2018-10-29 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Andreas G Wibmer; Michael J Morris; Mithat Gonen; Junting Zheng; Hedvig Hricak; Steven Larson; Howard I Scher; Hebert Alberto Vargas Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-01-08 Impact factor: 10.057