| Literature DB >> 32629389 |
Rémy Nicolle1, Yuna Blum1, Pauline Duconseil2, Charles Vanbrugghe2, Nicolas Brandone3, Flora Poizat4, Julie Roques3, Martin Bigonnet3, Odile Gayet3, Marion Rubis3, Nabila Elarouci1, Lucile Armenoult1, Mira Ayadi1, Aurélien de Reyniès1, Marc Giovannini4, Philippe Grandval5, Stephane Garcia2, Cindy Canivet6, Jérôme Cros7, Barbara Bournet6, Louis Buscail6, Vincent Moutardier2, Marine Gilabert4, Juan Iovanna3, Nelson Dusetti3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A significant gap in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patient's care is the lack of molecular parameters characterizing tumours and allowing a personalized treatment.Entities:
Keywords: Chemosensitivity prediction; Pancreatic cancer; Precision medicine; Prognostic; Transcriptomic signature; Translational medicine
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32629389 PMCID: PMC7334821 DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2020.102858
Source DB: PubMed Journal: EBioMedicine ISSN: 2352-3964 Impact factor: 8.143
Fig. 1PDAC gene signatures and classification in PDX. a. Normalized and averaged expression of genes specific to the classical and basal-like subtypes in PDX (n = 76) grouped by a five-subtype histological classification. b. Unsupervised classifications in k classes by consensus clustering (with k from 2 to 4) and association of each cluster to basal-like and classical gene expression. On a. and b. boxplots are coloured by the median z-score of each group. c. Heatmap representation of the transcriptomic characterization of the PDX (n = 76) with each PDX as a column. Previously published classifications were applied to the human transcriptome profiles of the PDX. Non-tumour driven classifications were applied (ADEX, Immunogenic, desmoplastic, activated stroma, Immune classical), however, no PDX were assigned to any of them. The z-score of each of the published classification gene sets is represented. The number of genes of each signature is annotated on the right of the heatmap. PDX were ordered by their value on the molecular gradient. d. Distribution of the differences in the coefficient of determination (R2) between two generalized linear models associating the expression of each gene in each signature with either the two-class classification from PurIST or the Molecular Gradient. The distribution of R2 differences was compared to that of other genes (not found in any other subtype signatures) using Welch's t-test. e. GATA6 and Vimentin (VIM) immunohistochemical quantification. Four levels of staining were used to quantify the proportion of cells at each four levels of GATA6 or VIM protein expression.
Fig. 2Reproducibility of the PAMG in PDAC. a. Schematic illustration of the identification of the PAMG in public datasets. ICA (independent component analysis) blind deconvolution was used on three different datasets of whole transcriptome profiling, generating spaces of independent components of increasing sizes (2 ≤ l ≤ 25). The PAMG was first obtained from PDX by selecting the component most associated with PDX histology. The gene weights of this initial PDX-based independent component was then correlated to the gene weights of all extracted independent components in the other datasets, with the spearman correlation represented in a grid. The highest correlating component of each dataset was selected as the PAMG. b. Density plot of the PAMG gene weights of common genes found in each pair of datasets. Marker genes are highlighted. c. Scatter plots comparing the three versions of the Molecular Gradient (PDX, ICGC and Puleo) on four datasets. Each point is a sample, coloured by its PAMG score as defined by the PDX version. Pearson correlation is shown.
Fig. 3Prognostic value of the PAMG in the ICGC series. a. Univariate survival analysis using the overall survival (OS) of 260 patients associated with either the PAMG or the PurIST two-subtype classification. b. Univariate relative risk for OS associated with the PAMG. Each point is a patient's relative risk of disease with error bars corresponding to a 95% confidence interval. c. Kaplan-Meier plot of survival using arbitrary cuts of the Molecular Gradient. d. Multivariate survival analysis forest plot. Univariate: n = 267. Multivariate: n = 230. Wald's test p-values are shown.
Fig. 4Prognostic value of the PAMG in the Puleo cohort. a. Univariate survival analysis using the OS of 308 patients associated with either the PAMG or the PurIST two-subtype classification. b. Univariate relative risk for OS associated with the PAMG. Each point is a patient's relative risk of decease with error bars corresponding to a 95% confidence interval. c. Kaplan-Meier plot of survival using arbitrary cuts of the PAMG. d. Multivariate survival analysis forest plot. Univariate: n = 308. Multivariate: n = 298. Wald's test p-values are shown.
Fig. 5Evaluation of the PAMG in advanced disease. a. Univariate survival analysis using the OS of 47 patients in the BACAP cohort associated with either the PAMG or the PurIST two-subtype classification. b. Multivariate survival analysis forest plot for the BACAP cohort. c. Waterfall plot illustrating the change in tumour size induced by mFOLFIRINOX treatment evaluated by RECIST 1.1 in the COMPASS cohort (n = 28). Annotated Pearson's correlation between RECIST 1.1 and PAMG is shown.