Vidhi Malik1, Yogesh Kalakoti1, Durai Sundar2. 1. DAILAB, Department of Biochemical Engineering and Biotechnology, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi, New Delhi, India. 2. DAILAB, Department of Biochemical Engineering and Biotechnology, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi, New Delhi, India. sundar@dbeb.iitd.ac.in.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Survival and drug response are two highly emphasized clinical outcomes in cancer research that directs the prognosis of a cancer patient. Here, we have proposed a late multi omics integrative framework that robustly quantifies survival and drug response for breast cancer patients with a focus on the relative predictive ability of available omics datatypes. Neighborhood component analysis (NCA), a supervised feature selection algorithm selected relevant features from multi-omics datasets retrieved from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and Genomics of Drug Sensitivity in Cancer (GDSC) databases. A Neural network framework, fed with NCA selected features, was used to develop survival and drug response prediction models for breast cancer patients. The drug response framework used regression and unsupervised clustering (K-means) to segregate samples into responders and non-responders based on their predicted IC50 values (Z-score). RESULTS: The survival prediction framework was highly effective in categorizing patients into risk subtypes with an accuracy of 94%. Compared to single-omics and early integration approaches, our drug response prediction models performed significantly better and were able to predict IC50 values (Z-score) with a mean square error (MSE) of 1.154 and an overall regression value of 0.92, showing a linear relationship between predicted and actual IC50 values. CONCLUSION: The proposed omics integration strategy provides an effective way of extracting critical information from diverse omics data types enabling estimation of prognostic indicators. Such integrative models with high predictive power would have a significant impact and utility in precision oncology.
BACKGROUND: Survival and drug response are two highly emphasized clinical outcomes in cancer research that directs the prognosis of a cancerpatient. Here, we have proposed a late multi omics integrative framework that robustly quantifies survival and drug response for breast cancerpatients with a focus on the relative predictive ability of available omics datatypes. Neighborhood component analysis (NCA), a supervised feature selection algorithm selected relevant features from multi-omics datasets retrieved from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and Genomics of Drug Sensitivity in Cancer (GDSC) databases. A Neural network framework, fed with NCA selected features, was used to develop survival and drug response prediction models for breast cancerpatients. The drug response framework used regression and unsupervised clustering (K-means) to segregate samples into responders and non-responders based on their predicted IC50 values (Z-score). RESULTS: The survival prediction framework was highly effective in categorizing patients into risk subtypes with an accuracy of 94%. Compared to single-omics and early integration approaches, our drug response prediction models performed significantly better and were able to predict IC50 values (Z-score) with a mean square error (MSE) of 1.154 and an overall regression value of 0.92, showing a linear relationship between predicted and actual IC50 values. CONCLUSION: The proposed omics integration strategy provides an effective way of extracting critical information from diverse omics data types enabling estimation of prognostic indicators. Such integrative models with high predictive power would have a significant impact and utility in precision oncology.
Entities:
Keywords:
Deep learning; Feature selection; Multi-omics integration; Survival outcomes and drug response prediction
Authors: J E Staunton; D K Slonim; H A Coller; P Tamayo; M J Angelo; J Park; U Scherf; J K Lee; W O Reinhold; J N Weinstein; J P Mesirov; E S Lander; T R Golub Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2001-09-11 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: U Scherf; D T Ross; M Waltham; L H Smith; J K Lee; L Tanabe; K W Kohn; W C Reinhold; T G Myers; D T Andrews; D A Scudiero; M B Eisen; E A Sausville; Y Pommier; D Botstein; P O Brown; J N Weinstein Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rajesh Dikshit; Sultan Eser; Colin Mathers; Marise Rebelo; Donald Maxwell Parkin; David Forman; Freddie Bray Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Tanya T Kwan; Aditya Bardia; Laura M Spring; Anita Giobbie-Hurder; Mark Kalinich; Taronish Dubash; Tilak Sundaresan; Xin Hong; Joseph A LiCausi; Uyen Ho; Erin J Silva; Ben S Wittner; Lecia V Sequist; Ravi Kapur; David T Miyamoto; Mehmet Toner; Daniel A Haber; Shyamala Maheswaran Journal: Cancer Discov Date: 2018-08-13 Impact factor: 39.397