A breast cancer prognostic signature predicts clinical outcomes in multiple tumor types

Mary Babb Randolph Cancer Center/Community Medicine, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506-9300, USA.
Oncology Reports (Impact Factor: 2.19). 08/2010; 24(2):489-94. DOI: 10.3892/or_00000883
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Epidemiological studies indicate an increased risk of subsequent primary ovarian cancer from women with breast cancer. We have recently identified a 28-gene expression signature that predicts, with high accuracy, the clinical course in a large population of breast cancer patients. This prognostic gene signature also accurately predicts response to chemotherapy commonly used for treating breast cancer, including CMF, Tamoxifen, Paclitaxel, Docetaxel and Doxorubicin (Adriamycin), in a panel of 60 cancer cell lines of nine different tissue origins. This prompted us to investigate whether this prognostic gene signature could also predict clinical outcome in other cancer types of epithelial origins, including ovarian cancer (n=124), colon tumors (n=74) and lung adenocarcinomas (n=442). The results show that the gene expression signature contributes significantly more accurate (P<0.05; compared with random prediction) prognostic information in multiple cancer types independent of established clinical parameters. Furthermore, the functional pathway analysis with curated database delineated a biological network with tight connections between the signature genes and numerous well established cancer hallmarks, indicating important roles of this prognostic gene signature in tumor genesis and progression.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Why does a constant barrage of DNA damage lead to disease in some individuals, while others remain healthy? This article surveys current work addressing the implications of inter-individual variation in DNA repair capacity for human health, and discusses the status of DNA repair assays as potential clinical tools for personalized prevention or treatment of disease. In particular, we highlight research showing that there are significant inter-individual variations in DNA repair capacity (DRC), and that measuring these differences provides important biological insight regarding disease susceptibility and cancer treatment efficacy. We emphasize work showing that it is important to measure repair capacity in multiple pathways, and that functional assays are required to fill a gap left by genome wide association studies, global gene expression and proteomics. Finally, we discuss research that will be needed to overcome barriers that currently limit the use of DNA repair assays in the clinic.
    DNA repair 04/2014; 19. DOI:10.1016/j.dnarep.2014.03.009 · 3.36 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) large randomized trials have demonstrated that in patients with radically resected disease adjuvant chemotherapy improves 5-year survival rates. However, a customization of systemic treatment is needed to avoid treatments in patients cured by surgery alone or to justify the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in high risk patients, including those in stage IA. Recently, the possibility of identifying prognostic and predictive factors related to the genetic signatures of the tumor that could affect adjuvant and neo-adjuvant treatment choices for resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been of interest. This review summarizes the current status and future opportunities for clinical application of genotyping and genomic tests in early NSCLC.
    10/2013; 2(5):372-81. DOI:10.3978/j.issn.2218-6751.2013.10.05
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: The traditional staging system is inadequate to identify those patients with stage II colorectal cancer (CRC) at high risk of recurrence or with stage III CRC at low risk. A number of gene expression signatures to predict CRC prognosis have been proposed, but none is routinely used in the clinic. The aim of this work was to assess the prediction ability and potential clinical usefulness of these signatures in a series of independent datasets. METHODS: A literature review identified 31 gene expression signatures that used gene expression data to predict prognosis in CRC tissue. The search was based on the PubMed database and was restricted to papers published from January 2004 to December 2011. Eleven CRC gene expression datasets with outcome information were identified and downloaded from public repositories. Random Forest classifier was used to build predictors from the gene lists. Matthews correlation coefficient was chosen as a measure of classification accuracy and its associated p-value was used to assess association with prognosis. For clinical usefulness evaluation, positive and negative post-tests probabilities were computed in stage II and III samples. RESULTS: Five gene signatures showed significant association with prognosis and provided reasonable prediction accuracy in their own training datasets. Nevertheless, all signatures showed low reproducibility in independent data. Stratified analyses by stage or microsatellite instability status showed significant association but limited discrimination ability, especially in stage II tumors. From a clinical perspective, the most predictive signatures showed a minor but significant improvement over the classical staging system. CONCLUSIONS: The published signatures show low prediction accuracy but moderate clinical usefulness. Although gene expression data may inform prognosis, better strategies for signature validation are needed to encourage their widespread use in the clinic.
    PLoS ONE 11/2012; 7(11):e48877. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0048877 · 3.53 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 23, 2014