| Literature DB >> 33806030 |
Wanja Kassuhn1,2, Oliver Klein3, Silvia Darb-Esfahani4,5, Hedwig Lammert4, Sylwia Handzik3,4, Eliane T Taube4, Wolfgang D Schmitt4, Carlotta Keunecke1,2, David Horst4, Felix Dreher6, Joshy George7, David D Bowtell8, Oliver Dorigo9, Michael Hummel4, Jalid Sehouli1,2, Nils Blüthgen4,10, Hagen Kulbe1,2, Elena I Braicu1,2.
Abstract
Despite the correlation of clinical outcome and molecular subtypes of high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC), contemporary gene expression signatures have not been implemented in clinical practice to stratify patients for targeted therapy. Hence, we aimed to examine the potential of unsupervised matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization imaging mass spectrometry (MALDI-IMS) to stratify patients who might benefit from targeted therapeutic strategies. Molecular subtyping of paraffin-embedded tissue samples from 279 HGSOC patients was performed by NanoString analysis (ground truth labeling). Next, we applied MALDI-IMS paired with machine-learning algorithms to identify distinct mass profiles on the same paraffin-embedded tissue sections and distinguish HGSOC subtypes by proteomic signature. Finally, we devised a novel approach to annotate spectra of stromal origin. We elucidated a MALDI-derived proteomic signature (135 peptides) able to classify HGSOC subtypes. Random forest classifiers achieved an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.983. Furthermore, we demonstrated that the exclusion of stroma-associated spectra provides tangible improvements to classification quality (AUC = 0.988). Moreover, novel MALDI-based stroma annotation achieved near-perfect classifications (AUC = 0.999). Here, we present a concept integrating MALDI-IMS with machine-learning algorithms to classify patients according to distinct molecular subtypes of HGSOC. This has great potential to assign patients for personalized treatment.Entities:
Keywords: MALDI-IMS; diagnostic classifier; molecular subtypes; ovarian cancer
Year: 2021 PMID: 33806030 PMCID: PMC8036744 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13071512
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.639
Figure 1Workflow for the stratification of high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) patients. Study workflow diagram of performed analysis (blue) including NanoString analysis (39 gene signature) and MALDI-Imaging; computational analysis by random forest (RF; aquamarine) and MALDI-Imaging datasets (yellow).
Figure 2Kaplan–Meier estimated survival rates of HGSOC patients stratified into molecular subtypes by NanoString analysis. Non-parametric survival estimates of (A) progression free survival and (B) overall survival of HGSOC patients.
Figure 3Juxtaposition of stroma labeling and feature intensity of 1106.719 m/z (histone H1.2). A subset of four stroma-labeled tumor cores depicted as (A) spatial distribution of expertly annotated stroma and malignant areas, and (B) a spatial distribution of intensities measured at 1106.719 m/z showing exclusive expression in malignant areas.
Figure 4MALDI-Imaging-derived proteomics signature of 135 peptides from HGSOC subtype. Subtypes are shown as follows: (A) C1, mesenchymal; (B) C2, immunoreactive; (C) C4, differentiated; and (D) C5, proliferative. In total, feature selection resulted in 135 features in a mass range between m/z 600 and 3200. Highlighted m/z values indicate features with high differential in average intensities across subtypes.
Figure 5Visualization of spatial distribution of characteristic m/z values for representative tissue cores of each HGSOC subtype. (A) H&E staining of four representative tissue cores. (B) Intensity distribution of identified malignancy marker histone H1.2 (H1-2; 1106.719 Da) and highly subtype-predictive actin, aortic smooth muscle (ACTA2; 976.490 Da). Red outlines indicate the malignant area by reference to H1-2 intensity (not the signature).
Figure 6AUC analysis of RF model on stroma-labeled datasets, subtype-labeled datasets with and without spectra associated with the stroma compartment. Area under the curve (AUC) analysis of (A) stroma classification, (B) subtype classification, and (C) consecutive stroma and subtype classification such that spectra corresponding to stroma were excluded. (D) Average AUC for each subtype following a one-vs.-one strategy for the dataset with (left) and without stroma (right).