| Literature DB >> 28185577 |
Davide Cangelosi1, Simone Pelassa1, Martina Morini1, Massimo Conte2, Maria Carla Bosco1, Alessandra Eva1, Angela Rita Sementa3, Luigi Varesio4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: More than fifty percent of neuroblastoma (NB) patients with adverse prognosis do not benefit from treatment making the identification of new potential targets mandatory. Hypoxia is a condition of low oxygen tension, occurring in poorly vascularized tissues, which activates specific genes and contributes to the acquisition of the tumor aggressive phenotype. We defined a gene expression signature (NB-hypo), which measures the hypoxic status of the neuroblastoma tumor. We aimed at developing a classifier predicting neuroblastoma patients' outcome based on the assessment of the adverse effects of tumor hypoxia on the progression of the disease.Entities:
Keywords: Gene set enrichment analysis; Gene signature; Hypoxia; Neuroblastoma; Outcome prediction
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 28185577 PMCID: PMC5123344 DOI: 10.1186/s12859-016-1194-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Bioinformatics ISSN: 1471-2105 Impact factor: 3.169
Fig. 1Schematic representation of the procedures used to build the NB-hypo classifier. The gene expression of 182 neuroblastoma tumors was measured by microarray on Affymetrix GeneChip HG-U133plus2.0. The dataset was divided into training (100 patients) and test (82 patients) sets. ANN model was applied to the training set in a 100 loops cross-validation scheme. The classifier was then applied to the test set. GSEA evaluated the enrichment of hypoxia related gene sets in the groups defined by the NB-hypo classifier
Neuroblastoma patient’s dataset
| Patients’ characteristics | Training seta | Test seta |
|---|---|---|
| Age at diagnosisb | ||
| < 1 year | 50 (50 %) | 36 (44 %) |
| ≥ 1 year | 50 (50 %) | 46 (56 %) |
| INSS stagec | ||
| 1,2,3,4s | 67 (67 %) | 49 (60 %) |
| 4 | 33 (33 %) | 33 (40 %) |
| MYCN statusd | ||
| normal | 84 (84 %) | 68 (83 %) |
| amplified | 16 (16 %) | 14 (17 %) |
| Outcomee | ||
| Good | 72 (72 %) | 59 (72 %) |
| Poor | 28 (28 %) | 23 (28 %) |
aThe 182 patients’ dataset is split into two groups of 100 and 82 patients representing the training and test set, respectively
The total number of patients and the relative percentage in each subdivision is shown
bAge at diagnosis is defined as the patient’s age before or after 1 year
cINSS stage is defined according to the International Neuroblasma Staging System (INSS) [2]
INSS divided tumors into 5 stages (1,2,3,4,4s)
Stage 1 indicates localised tumour with incomplete gross excision; representative ipsilateral non-adherent lymph nodes negative for tumour microscopically. Stage 2 indicates localised tumour with or without complete gross excision, with ipsilateral non-adherent lymph nodes positive for tumour. Enlarged contralateral lymph nodes should be negative microscopically. Stage 3 indicates unresectable unilateral tumour infiltrating across the midline, with or without regional lymph node involvement; or localised unilateral tumour with contralateral regional lymph node involvement; or midline tumour with bilateral extension by infiltration (unresectable) or by lymph node involvement. Stage 4 indicates any primary tumour with dissemination to distant lymph nodes, bone, bone marrow, liver, skin, or other organs (except as defined by stage 4s). Stage 4s indicates localised primary tumour in infants younger than 1 year with dissemination limited to skin, liver, or bone marrow
dThe status of the N-myc proto-oncogene is defined as amplified or normal according to the copy number of the gene on chromosome 2
eGood and poor outcome were defined as patient’s status (alive or dead) 5 years after diagnosis
NB patients classification by different risk factors
| Performancea | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predictor | Accuracyb | Sensitivityc | Precisiond | Specificitye | NPVf | MCCg | F1-scoreh |
| NB-hypo classifier (Good vs Poor) | 87 % | 90 % | 91 % | 78 % | 75 % | 67 % | 90 % |
| Age at diagnosis (< 1 year vs ≥ 1 year) | 72 % | 61 % | 100 % | 100 % | 50 % | 55 % | 76 % |
| INSS stage (1,2,3,4s vs 4) | 76 % | 75 % | 90 % | 78 % | 55 % | 78 % | 82 % |
| MYCN status (normal vs amplified) | 84 % | 97 % | 84 % | 52 % | 86 % | 58 % | 90 % |
aPerformance of NB-hypo classifier and other commonly used neuroblastoma risk factors in the test set
For prediction of prognosis by age at diagnosis, patients older than one year were predicted with poor prognosis. For prediction by stage, patients with stage 1,2,3, and 4s were predicted with good prognosis and patients with stage 4 were predicted with poor prognosis. For prediction by MYCN status, patients with amplified MYCN were predicted with poor prognosis while patients without MYCN amplification were predicted with good prognosis
bAccuracy measures the proportion of correctly classified patients
cSensitivity measures the proportion of good outcome patients correctly classified as such
dPrecision measures the proportion of correctly classified good outcome patients
eSpecificity measures the proportion of poor outcome patients correctly classified as such
fNPV(Negative Predictive Value) measures the proportion of correctly classified poor outcome patients
gMCC (Matthew's correlation coefficient) measures the correlation between a classifier prediction and the observed outcomes
hF1-score measures the weighted average of the precision and sensitivity
Fig. 2Kaplan-Meier and log-rank analysis for the 82 neuroblastoma patients belonging to the external test dataset. Overall survival (a) and event free survival (b) of patients classified according to the NB-hypo classifier. Red and blue curves represent predicted Poor and Good outcome patients, respectively. The p-value of the log-rank test is shown
Multivariate Cox analysis results of the test set
| Multivariate cox analysis (OS)a | Multivariate cox analysis (EFS)b | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Covariate | Coefficientc | HRd | 95 % Cle |
| Coefficientc | HRd | 95 % Cle |
|
| NB-hypo classifier (Good vs Poor) | 1.1 | 3.3 | (1.0, 10.6) | 4.00E-02 | 1.1 | 3 | (1.0, 9.0) | 4.00E-02 |
| Age group (<12 months vs ≥ 12 months) | 1.9 | 4E-08 | (0.0, inf) | 9.90E-01 | 1.2 | 3.6 | (0.9, 14.2) | 6.00E-02 |
| INSS stage (1,2,3,4s vs 4) | 0.6 | 1.9 | (0.5, 6.4) | 2.70E-01 | 0.4 | 1.5 | (0.5, 4.5) | 4.00E-04 |
| MYCN status (nomal vs amplified) | 0.3 | 1.3 | (0.5, 3.5) | 4.90E-01 | 0.4 | 1.5 | (0.6, 3.9) | 3.00E-01 |
aMultivariate cox regression analysis for overall survival
bMultivariate cox regression analysis for event - free survival
cCox regression coefficient
dHazard ratio
e95 % of confidence interval
fSignificance. Values smaller than 0.05 are acceptable
Fig. 3The plot shows the concordance between NB-hypo prediction and the clinical characteristics of the 82 patients in the external test dataset. Patients are grouped according to INSS staging. Rows represent individual patients. For each stage, the column “Prediction” indicates the prediction results of NB-hypo classifier (Poor or Good). The column “Correct” represents the correctness of NB-hypo classifier prediction (true or false). The column “Age” shows the age at diagnosis (>1 year vs. < 1 year). The column “MYCN” shows the MYCN amplification status (A = amplified; NA = not amplified). Patients marked with a clearer color are the ones predicted as “Poor” by NB-hypo classifier
Hypoxia-related gene sets enriched in patients classified as Poor outcome
| Gene seta | ESb | NESc | FDR q-valued |
|---|---|---|---|
| WINTER_HYPOXIA_UP | 0.72 | 2.22 | 0.00 |
| HARRIS_HYPOXIA | 0.52 | 1.90 | 0.02 |
| JIANG_HYPOXIA_CANCER | 0.42 | 1.83 | 0.03 |
| ELVIDGE_HYPOXIA_BY_DMOG_DN | 0.46 | 1.76 | 0.03 |
| NB-HYPO_62-PBSETS | 0.53 | 1.65 | 0.06 |
| WACKER_HYPOXIA_TARGETS_OF_VHL | 0.60 | 1.61 | 0.06 |
| KRIEG_HYPOXIA_VIA_KDM3A | 0.42 | 1.64 | 0.06 |
| KIM_HYPOXIA | 0.48 | 1.59 | 0.06 |
| MENSE_HYPOXIA_UP | 0.44 | 1.58 | 0.05 |
| LEONARD_HYPOXIA | 0.45 | 1.47 | 0.08 |
| WEINMANN_ADAPTATION_TO_HYPOXIA_DN | 0.36 | 1.19 | 0.24 |
aHypoxia-related gene sets enriched in the GSEA analysis
bES (enrichment score) is the maximum deviation from zero encountered in a random walk for a gene set
cNES (normalized enrichment score) is the fraction between the ES and the mean of the ES against a number of permutations of the dataset
dFDR q-value is the estimated probability that the normalized enrichment score represents a false positive finding. Values <= 0.25 are considered acceptable