ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2013
Independent validation of a model using cell line chemosensitivity to predict response to therapy.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and validation of a gene expression score that predicts response to fulvestrant in breast cancer patients.PloS one · 2014Trial
- A machine learning-based gene signature of response to the novel alkylating agent LP-184 distinguishes its potential tumor indications.BMC bioinformatics · 2021Article
- Integration of Tumor Genomic Data with Cell Lines Using Multi-dimensional Network Modules Improves Cancer Pharmacogenomics.Cell systems · 2018Article
- Predicting efficacy of epirubicin by a multigene assay in advanced breast cancer within a Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (DBCG) cohort: a retrospective-prospective blinded study.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2018Article
- Molecular prediction of adjuvant cisplatin efficacy in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC)-validation in two independent cohorts.PloS one · 2018Article
- Cell Line Derived 5-FU and Irinotecan Drug-Sensitivity Profiles Evaluated in Adjuvant Colon Cancer Trial Data.PloS one · 2016Article
- Predicting response to multidrug regimens in cancer patients using cell line experiments and regularised regression models.BMC cancer · 2015Article
- Development and blind clinical validation of a microRNA based predictor of response to treatment with R-CHO(E)P in DLBCL.PloS one · 2015Article
- Precision medicine for cancer patients: lessons learned and the path forward.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMethods using cell line microarray and drug sensitivity data to predict patients' chemotherapy response are appealing, but groups may be reluctant to release details to preserve intellectual property. Here we describe a case study to validate predictions while treating the methods as a "black box."
methodsMedical Prognosis Institute (MPI) constructed cell-line-derived sensitivity scores (SSs) and combined scores (CSs) that incorporate clinical variables. MD Anderson researchers evaluated their predictions. We searched the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) to identify validation datasets, and we performed statistical evaluation of the agreement between prediction and clinical observation.
resultsWe identified 3 suitable datasets: GSE16446 (n = 120; binary outcome), GSE17920 (n = 130; binary outcome), and GSE10255 (n = 161; continuous and time-to-event outcomes). The SS was statistically significantly associated with primary treatment responses for all studies (GSE16446: P = .02; GSE17920: P = .02; GSE10255: P = .02). Dichotomized SSs performed no better than chance for GSE16446 and GSE17920, and categorized SSs did not predict disease-free survival (GSE10255). SSs sometimes improved on predictions using clinical variables (GSE16446: P = .05; GSE17920: P = .31; GSE10255: P = .045), but gains were limited (95% confidence intervals for GSE16446 and GSE17920 include 0). The CS did not predict treatment response for GSE16446 (P = .55), but it did for GSE17920 (P < .001). Coefficients of clinical variables provided by MPI for CSs agree with estimates for GSE17920 better than estimates for GSE16446.
conclusionsModel predictions were better than chance in all three datasets. However, these scores added little to existing clinical predictors; statistically significant contributions were likely to be too small to change clinical practice. These findings suggest that discovering better predictors will require both cell line data and a clinical training dataset of patient samples.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.