Assessing probe-specific dye and slide biases in two-color microarray data

A primary reason for using two-color microarrays is that the use of two samples labeled with different dyes on the same slide, that bind to probes on the same spot, is supposed to adjust for many factors that introduce noise and errors into the analysis. Most users assume that any differences between the dyes can be adjusted out by standard methods of normalization, so that measures such as log ratios on the same slide are reliable measures of comparative expression. However, even after the normalization, there are still probe specific dye and slide variation among the data. We define a method to quantify the amount of the dye-by-probe and slide-by-probe interaction. This serves as a diagnostic, both visual and numeric, of the existence of probe-specific dye bias. We show how this improved the performance of two-color array analysis for arrays for genomic analysis of biological samples ranging from rice to human tissue.We develop a procedure for quantifying the extent of probe-specific dye and slide bias in two-color microarrays. The primary output is a graphical diagnostic of the extent of the bias which called ECDF (Empirical Cumulative Distribution Function), though numerical results are also obtained.We show that the dye and slide biases were high for human and rice genomic arrays in two gene expression facilities, even after the standard intensity-based normalization, and describe how this diagnostic allowed the problems causing the probe-specific bias to be addressed, and resulted in important improvements in performance. The R package LMGene which contains the method described in this paper has been available to download from Bioconductor

Assessing probe-specific dye and slide biases in two-color microarray data.

A primary reason for using two-color microarrays is that the use of two samples labeled with different dyes on the same slide, that bind to probes on the same spot, is supposed to adjust for many factors that introduce noise and errors into the analysis. Most users assume that any differences between the dyes can be adjusted out by standard methods of normalization, so that measures such as log ratios on the same slide are reliable measures of comparative expression. However, even after the normalization, there are still probe specific dye and slide variation among the data. We define a method to quantify the amount of the dye-by-probe and slide-by-probe interaction. This serves as a diagnostic, both visual and numeric, of the existence of probe-specific dye bias. We show how this improved the performance of two-color array analysis for arrays for genomic analysis of biological samples ranging from rice to human tissue.We develop a procedure for quantifying the extent of probe-specific dye and slide bias in two-color microarrays. The primary output is a graphical diagnostic of the extent of the bias which called ECDF (Empirical Cumulative Distribution Function), though numerical results are also obtained.We show that the dye and slide biases were high for human and rice genomic arrays in two gene expression facilities, even after the standard intensity-based normalization, and describe how this diagnostic allowed the problems causing the probe-specific bias to be addressed, and resulted in important improvements in performance. The R package LMGene which contains the method described in this paper has been available to download from Bioconductor

Dacomitinib as first-line treatment in patients with clinically or molecularly selected advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial

Background Patients with EGFR-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer generally have a progression-free survival of 9-13 months while being treated with the EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors gefitinib or erlotinib. However, resistance inevitably develops, and more effective EGFR inhibitors are needed. Dacomitinib is a covalent pan-HER inhibitor that has shown clinical activity in patients previously treated with gefitinib or erlotinib. We did a trial of dacomitinib as initial systemic therapy in clinically and molecularly selected patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Methods In this open-label, multicentre, phase 2 trial, we enrolled treatment-naive patients with advanced lung cancer who had clinical (never-smokers [= 15 years since last cigarette) or molecular (EGFR mutation, regardless of smoking status) characteristics associated with response to EGFR inhibitors. We gave dacomitinib orally once daily (45 mg or 30 mg) until progressive disease, unacceptable toxicity, or patient withdrawal. We used Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria (version 1.0) to investigate the activity of dacomitinib in all patients with a baseline scan and at least one post-treatment scan, with investigator assessment of response and progression. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival at 4 months in the as-enrolled population, with a null hypothesis of progression-free survival at 4 months of 50% or less. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials. gov, number NCT00818441, and is no longer accruing patients. Findings Between March 11, 2009, and April 1, 2011, we enrolled 89 patients from 25 centres, including 45 (51%) with EGFR-activating mutations in exon 19 (n=25) or exon 21 (n=20). Progression-free survival at 4 months was 76.8% (95% CI 66.4-84.4) in the as-enrolled population, and was 95.5% (95% CI 83.2-98.9) in the EGFR-mutant population. The most common all-grade treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea in 83 (93%) patients, dermatitis acneiform in 69 (78%) patients, dry skin in 39 (44%) patients, and stomatitis in 36 (40%) patients. Two patients (2%) had grade 4 treatment-related events (one with hypokalaemia and one with dyspnoea). No grade 5 toxicities were recorded. Interpretation Dacomitinib had encouraging clinical activity as initial systemic treatment in clinically or molecularly selected patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

Dacomitinib versus erlotinib in patients with advanced-stage, previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (ARCHER 1009): A randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial

Background: Dacomitinib is an irreversible pan-EGFR family tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Findings from a phase 2 study in non-small cell lung cancer showed favourable efficacy for dacomitinib compared with erlotinib. We aimed to compare dacomitinib with erlotinib in a phase 3 study. Methods: In a randomised, multicentre, double-blind phase 3 trial in 134 centres in 23 countries, we enrolled patients who had locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer, progression after one or two previous regimens of chemotherapy, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2, and presence of measurable disease. We randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to dacomitinib (45 mg/day) or erlotinib (150 mg/day) with matching placebo. Treatment allocation was masked to the investigator, patient, and study funder. Randomisation was stratified by histology (adenocarcinoma vs non-adenocarcinoma), ethnic origin (Asian vs non-Asian and Indian sub-continent), performance status (0-1 vs 2), and smoking status (never-smoker vs ever-smoker). The coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival per independent review for all randomly assigned patients, and for all randomly assigned patients with KRAS wild-type tumours. The study has completed accrual and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01360554. Findings: Between June 22, 2011, and March 12, 2013, we enrolled 878 patients and randomly assigned 439 to dacomitinib (256 KRAS wild type) and 439 (263 KRAS wild type) to erlotinib. Median progression-free survival was 2.6 months (95% CI 1.9-2.8) in both the dacomitinib group and the erlotinib group (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0.941, 95% CI 0.802-1.104, one-sided log-rank p=0.229). For patients with wild-type KRAS, median progression-free survival was 2.6 months for dacomitinib (95% CI 1.9-2.9) and erlotinib (95% CI 1.9-3.0; stratified HR 1.022, 95% CI 0.834-1.253, one-sided p=0.587). In patients who received at least one dose of study drug, the most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events were diarrhoea (47 [11%] patients in the dacomitinib group vs ten [2%] patients in the erlotinib group), rash (29 [7%] vs 12 [3%]), and stomatitis (15 [3%] vs two [Interpretation: Irreversible EGFR inhibition with dacomitinib was not superior to erlotinib in an unselected patient population with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer or in patients with KRAS wild-type tumours. Further study of irreversible EGFR inhibitors should be restricted to patients with activating EGFR mutations. Funding: Pfizer.</p