Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25886164›Full record

SynthesisBMC cancer2015

Evaluation of public cancer datasets and signatures identifies TP53 mutant signatures with robust prognostic and predictive value.

Brian David Lehmann, Yan Ding, Daniel Joseph Viox, Ming Jiang, Yi Zheng, Wang Liao, Xi Chen, Wei Xiang, Yajun Yi

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Brian David LehmannDepartment of Biochemistry, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA. brian.d.lehmann@vanderbilt.edu.
Yan DingDepartment of Dermatology, Hainan General Hospital, Haikou, Hainan, China. annymilk@126.com.
Daniel Joseph VioxFeinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA. daniel-viox@fsm.northwestern.edu.
Ming JiangDivision of Epidemiology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA. ming.jiang.1@ntu.edu.cn.
Yi ZhengPediatric Surgery Department, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, Shangdong, China. milozhengyi@gmail.com.
Wang LiaoDepartment of Cardiovascular Disease, Hainan General Hospital, Haikou, Hainan, China. crain_lw@163.com.
Xi ChenDepartment of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA. steven.chen@vanderbilt.edu.
Wei XiangDepartment of Pediatrics, Maternal and Child Health Care Hospital of Hainan Province, Haikou, China. xiangwei8@163.com.
Yajun YiDepartment of Medicine, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA. yajun.yi@vanderbilt.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSystematic analysis of cancer gene-expression patterns using high-throughput transcriptional profiling technologies has led to the discovery and publication of hundreds of gene-expression signatures. However, few public signature values have been cross-validated over multiple studies for the prediction of cancer prognosis and chemosensitivity in the neoadjuvant setting.

methodsTo analyze the prognostic and predictive values of publicly available signatures, we have implemented a systematic method for high-throughput and efficient validation of a large number of datasets and gene-expression signatures. Using this method, we performed a meta-analysis including 351 publicly available signatures, 37,000 random signatures, and 31 breast cancer datasets. Survival analyses and pathologic responses were used to assess prediction of prognosis, chemoresponsiveness, and chemo-drug sensitivity.

resultsAmong 31 breast cancer datasets and 351 public signatures, we identified 22 validation datasets, two robust prognostic signatures (BRmet50 and PMID18271932Sig33) in breast cancer and one signature (PMID20813035Sig137) specific for prognosis prediction in patients with ER-negative tumors. The 22 validation datasets demonstrated enhanced ability to distinguish cancer gene profiles from random gene profiles. Both prognostic signatures are composed of genes associated with TP53 mutations and were able to stratify the good and poor prognostic groups successfully in 82%and 68% of the 22 validation datasets, respectively. We then assessed the abilities of the two signatures to predict treatment responses of breast cancer patients treated with commonly used chemotherapeutic regimens. Both BRmet50 and PMID18271932Sig33 retrospectively identified those patients with an insensitive response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (mean positive predictive values 85%-88%). Among those patients predicted to be treatment sensitive, distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) was improved (negative predictive values 87%-88%). BRmet50 was further shown to prospectively predict taxane-anthracycline sensitivity in patients with HER2-negative (HER2-) breast cancer.

conclusionsWe have developed and applied a high-throughput screening method for public cancer signature validation. Using this method, we identified appropriate datasets for cross-validation and two robust signatures that differentiate TP53 mutation status and have prognostic and predictive value for breast cancer patients.

Indexed as

PrognosisBreast NeoplasmsBridged-Ring CompoundsDatabases, GeneticFemaleGene Expression ProfilingGene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateNeoadjuvant TherapyNeoplasm ProteinsReceptors, EstrogenTaxoidsTumor Suppressor Protein p53Bridged-Ring CompoundsNeoplasm ProteinsReceptors, EstrogentaxaneTaxoidsTP53 protein, humanTumor Suppressor Protein p53

Identifiers

PMID25886164
PMCPMC4404582

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.