Gene expression profiling spares early breast cancer patients from adjuvant therapy: derived and validated in two population-based cohorts

By Y. Pawitan, J. Bjöhle, L. Amler, A. Borg, S. Egyházi, P. Hall, Xia Han, L. Holmberg, F. Huang, S. Klaar and 10 more. Breast Cancer Research, 2005

778 citations recorded by the source corpus.

IntroductionAdjuvant breast cancer therapy significantly improves survival, but overtreatment and undertreatment are major problems. Breast cancer expression profiling has so far mainly been used to identify women with a poor prognosis as candidates for adjuvant therapy but without demonstrated value for therapy prediction.MethodsWe obtained the gene expression profiles of 159 population-derived breast cancer patients, and used hierarchical clustering to identify the signature associated with prognosis and impact of adjuvant therapies, defined as distant metastasis or death within 5 years. Independent datasets of 76 treated population-derived Swedish patients, 135 untreated population-derived Swedish patients and 78 Dutch patients were used for validation. The inclusion and exclusion criteria for the studies of population-derived Swedish patients were defined.ResultsAmong the 159 patients, a subset of 64 genes was found to give an optimal separation of patients with good and poor outcomes. Hierarchical clustering revealed three subgroups: patients who did well with therapy, patients who did well without therapy, and patients that failed to benefit from given therapy. The expression profile gave significantly better prognostication (odds ratio, 4.19; P = 0.007) (breast cancer end-points odds ratio, 10.64) compared with the Elston–Ellis histological grading (odds ratio of grade 2 vs 1 and grade 3 vs 1, 2.81 and 3.32 respectively; P = 0.24 and 0.16), tumor stage (odds ratio of stage 2 vs 1 and stage 3 vs 1, 1.11 and 1.28; P = 0.83 and 0.68) and age (odds ratio, 0.11; P = 0.55). The risk groups were consistent and validated in the independent Swedish and Dutch data sets used with 211 and 78 patients, respectively.ConclusionWe have identified discriminatory gene expression signatures working both on untreated and systematically treated primary breast cancer patients with the potential to spare them from adjuvant therapy.

Subfields: Cancer Research, Genetics, Pathology and Forensic Medicine

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0f3f73e0e52a2346c3130d11c96f17f572a103f6

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cancer Research

In Genetics

In Pathology and Forensic Medicine

Citations in the corpus

An embryonic stem cell–like gene expression signature in poorly differentiated aggressive human tumors (2008, methodology): “To assess whether presence of the ES signature is associated with poor prognosis in a more detailed manner, we performed Kaplan-Meier analyses of overall survival for individuals with breast cancer included in five independent studie”
Biological and molecular heterogeneity of breast cancers correlates with their cancer stem cell content. (2010, methodology): “We employed two data sets published by Ivshina et al. (2006) and Pawitan et al. (2005), from which we extracted the information relative to poorly differentiated (G3) and well-differentiated (G1) tumors (Extended Experimental Procedures).”
Most Random Gene Expression Signatures Are Significantly Associated with Breast Cancer Outcome (2011, result): “correlated with outcome [2–5], or with known aggressiveness”
Microarray analysis of altered sphingolipid metabolism reveals prognostic significance of sphingosine kinase 1 in breast cancer (2008, background): “study) Miller et al. [13] Pawitan et al. [ 14 ] Sotiriou et al. [15] Wang et al. [12] http://www.intgen.org/ Breast Cancer Res Treat (2008) 112:41–52 43”
GOBO: Gene Expression-Based Outcome for Breast Cancer Online (2011, neutral): “3 28/58/61 56614 22612 [52]”
Genetic reclassification of histologic grade delineates new clinical subtypes of breast cancer. (2006, methodology): “RNA preparation, microarray hybridization, and data processing were carried out essentially as described ( 23 , 24).”
The Influence of Feature Selection Methods on Accuracy, Stability and Interpretability of Molecular Signatures (2011, neutral): “GSE1456 159 40 [30]”
HSF1 drives a transcriptional program distinct from heat shock to support highly malignant human cancers. (2012, positive): “Cell 150, 549–562, August 3, 2012 ª2012 Elsevier Inc. 557 (A) Representative data set (Pawitan et al., 2005) is shown from a meta-analysis of 10 publicly available mRNA expression data sets (Table S5) derived from human breast tumors with known clinical outcome and representing a total of 1594…”
Frozen robust multiarray analysis (fRMA). (2010, neutral): “, 2002), accession GSE1456 (Pawitan et al., 2005).”
Meta-analysis of gene expression profiles in breast cancer: toward a unified understanding of breast cancer subtyping and prognosis signatures (2008, methodology): “STOCK 159 Karolinska Institute (Stockholm, Sweden) [3,13] Affymetrix U133A,B GEO: GSE1456 15,684”