Microarray technology and its effect on breast cancer (re)classification and prediction of outcome

SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Marker genes for circulating tumour cells predict survival in metastasized breast cancer patients

We investigated the prognostic significance of circulating breast cancer cells in peripheral blood detected by quantitative RT-PCR of marker genes in patients with advanced breast cancer. Blood samples from 94 breast cancer patients with metastatic disease (M1) were examined for circulating tumour cells by studying the mRNA expression of CK19, p1B, PS2 and EGP2 by real-time PCR. Using a score function, developed for predicting circulating tumour cells by quadratic discriminant analysis (QDA), the four expression levels were combined into a single discriminant value. Tumour cells were present in 24 out of 94 (31%) of the patients. In 77% (72 out of 94) of the patients distant metastatic disease was localised in the bone. In 36% (26 out of 72) of the patients with bone metastases at the time of blood sampling, a positive QDA for the four genes was found, in contrast to only 14% (three out of 22) without bone involvement. Overall survival rates by Kaplan-Meier revealed no prognostic effect for the presence of bone metastases (P=0.93). However, patients with a positive QDA value did have a progression-free survival at 1 year of 3% and overall survival at 2 years of 17%, against 22 and 36% for patients with a negative QDA value (P=0.015 and 0.0053, respectively). Breast cancer patients with metastatic disease have a significantly worse progression-free and overall survival when circulating tumour cells can be detected in their peripheral bloo

A gene expression profile for detection of sufficient tumour cells in breast tumour tissue: microarray diagnosis eligibility

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Microarray diagnostics of tumour samples is based on measurement of prognostic and/or predictive gene expression profiles. Typically, diagnostic profiles have been developed using bulk tumour samples with a sufficient amount of tumour cells (usually >50%). Consequentially, a diagnostic results depends on the minimal percentage of tumour cells within a sample. Currently, tumour cell percentage is assessed by conventional histopathological review. However, even for experienced pathologists, such scoring remains subjective and time consuming and can lead to ambiguous results.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In this study we investigated whether we could use transcriptional activity of a specific set of genes instead of histopathological review to identify samples with sufficient tumour cell content. Genome-wide gene expression measurements were used to develop a transcriptional gene profile that could accurately assess a sample's tumour cell percentage.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Supervised analysis across 165 breast tumour samples resulted in the identification of a set of 13 genes which expression correlated with presence of tumour cells. The developed gene profile showed a high performance (AUC 0.92) for identification of samples that are suitable for microarray diagnostics. Validation on 238 additional breast tumour samples indicated a robust performance for correct classification with an overall accuracy of 91 percent and a kappa score of 0.63 (95%CI 0.47–0.73).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The developed 13-gene profile provides an objective tool for assessment whether a breast cancer sample contains sufficient tumour cells for microarray diagnostics. It will improve the efficiency and throughput for diagnostic gene expression profiling as it no longer requires histopathological analysis for initial tumour percentage scoring. Such profile will also be very use useful for assessment of tumour cell percentage in biopsies where conventional histopathology is difficult, such as fine needle aspirates.</p

Systematic Bias in Genomic Classification Due to Contaminating Non-neoplastic Tissue in Breast Tumor Samples

Abstract Background Genomic tests are available to predict breast cancer recurrence and to guide clinical decision making. These predictors provide recurrence risk scores along with a measure of uncertainty, usually a confidence interval. The confidence interval conveys random error and not systematic bias. Standard tumor sampling methods make this problematic, as it is common to have a substantial proportion (typically 30-50%) of a tumor sample comprised of histologically benign tissue. This "normal" tissue could represent a source of non-random error or systematic bias in genomic classification. Methods To assess the performance characteristics of genomic classification to systematic error from normal contamination, we collected 55 tumor samples and paired tumor-adjacent normal tissue. Using genomic signatures from the tumor and paired normal, we evaluated how increasing normal contamination altered recurrence risk scores for various genomic predictors. Results Simulations of normal tissue contamination caused misclassification of tumors in all predictors evaluated, but different breast cancer predictors showed different types of vulnerability to normal tissue bias. While two predictors had unpredictable direction of bias (either higher or lower risk of relapse resulted from normal contamination), one signature showed predictable direction of normal tissue effects. Due to this predictable direction of effect, this signature (the PAM50) was adjusted for normal tissue contamination and these corrections improved sensitivity and negative predictive value. For all three assays quality control standards and/or appropriate bias adjustment strategies can be used to improve assay reliability. Conclusions Normal tissue sampled concurrently with tumor is an important source of bias in breast genomic predictors. All genomic predictors show some sensitivity to normal tissue contamination and ideal strategies for mitigating this bias vary depending upon the particular genes and computational methods used in the predictor

Genomic approaches in the management and treatment of breast cancer

Breast cancer is the most common malignancy afflicting women from Western cultures. It has been estimated that approximately 211 000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in 2003 in the United States alone, and each year over 40 000 women will die of this disease. Developments in breast cancer molecular and cellular biology research have brought us closer to understanding the genetic basis of this disease. Unfortunately, this information has not yet been incorporated into the routine diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer in the clinic. Recent advancements in microarray technology hold the promise of further increasing our understanding of the complexity and heterogeneity of this disease, and providing new avenues for the prognostication and prediction of breast cancer outcomes. The most recent application of microarray genomic technologies to studying breast cancer will be the focus of this review

Prognostic gene network modules in breast cancer hold promise

A substantial proportion of lymph node-negative patients who receive adjuvant chemotherapy do not derive any benefit from this aggressive and potentially toxic treatment. However, standard histopathological indices cannot reliably detect patients at low risk of relapse or distant metastasis. In the past few years several prognostic gene expression signatures have been developed and shown to potentially outperform histopathological factors in identifying low-risk patients in specific breast cancer subgroups with predictive values of around 90%, and therefore hold promise for clinical application. We envisage that further improvements and insights may come from integrative expression pathway analyses that dissect prognostic signatures into modules related to cancer hallmarks

Expression profiling to predict outcome in breast cancer: the influence of sample selection

Gene expression profiling of tumors using DNA microarrays is a promising method for predicting prognosis and treatment response in cancer patients. It was recently reported that expression profiles of sporadic breast cancers could be used to predict disease recurrence better than currently available clinical and histopathological prognostic factors. Having observed an overlap in those data between the genes that predict outcome and those that predict estrogen receptor-α status, we examined their predictive power in an independent data set. We conclude that it may be important to define prognostic expression profiles separately for estrogen receptor-α-positive and estrogen receptor-α-negative tumors

Nearest Template Prediction: A Single-Sample-Based Flexible Class Prediction with Confidence Assessment

Gene-expression signature-based disease classification and clinical outcome prediction has not been widely introduced in clinical medicine as initially expected, mainly due to the lack of extensive validation needed for its clinical deployment. Obstacles include variable measurement in microarray assay, inconsistent assay platform, analytical requirement for comparable pair of training and test datasets, etc. Furthermore, as medical device helping clinical decision making, the prediction needs to be made for each single patient with a measure of its reliability. To address these issues, there is a need for flexible prediction method less sensitive to difference in experimental and analytical conditions, applicable to each single patient, and providing measure of prediction confidence. The nearest template prediction (NTP) method provides a convenient way to make class prediction with assessment of prediction confidence computed in each single patient's gene-expression data using only a list of signature genes and a test dataset. We demonstrate that the method can be flexibly applied to cross-platform, cross-species, and multiclass predictions without any optimization of analysis parameters

Do Two Machine-Learning Based Prognostic Signatures for Breast Cancer Capture the Same Biological Processes?

The fact that there is very little if any overlap between the genes of different prognostic signatures for early-discovery breast cancer is well documented. The reasons for this apparent discrepancy have been explained by the limits of simple machine-learning identification and ranking techniques, and the biological relevance and meaning of the prognostic gene lists was questioned. Subsequently, proponents of the prognostic gene lists claimed that different lists do capture similar underlying biological processes and pathways. The present study places under scrutiny the validity of this claim, for two important gene lists that are at the focus of current large-scale validation efforts. We performed careful enrichment analysis, controlling the effects of multiple testing in a manner which takes into account the nested dependent structure of gene ontologies. In contradiction to several previous publications, we find that the only biological process or pathway for which statistically significant concordance can be claimed is cell proliferation, a process whose relevance and prognostic value was well known long before gene expression profiling. We found that the claims reported by others, of wider concordance between the biological processes captured by the two prognostic signatures studied, were found either to be lacking statistical rigor or were in fact based on addressing some other question