Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34012960›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in cell and developmental biology2021

Evaluating DNA Methylation, Gene Expression, Somatic Mutation, and Their Combinations in Inferring Tumor Tissue-of-Origin.

Haiyan Liu, Chun Qiu, Bo Wang, Pingping Bing, Geng Tian, Xueliang Zhang, Jun Ma, Bingsheng He, Jialiang Yang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in cell and developmental biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 85 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
85citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

85 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

25 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Haiyan LiuAcademician Workstation, Changsha Medical University, Changsha, China.
Chun QiuDepartment of Oncology, Hainan General Hospital, Haikou, China.
Bo WangGeneis Beijing Co., Ltd., Beijing, China.
Pingping BingAcademician Workstation, Changsha Medical University, Changsha, China.
Geng TianGeneis Beijing Co., Ltd., Beijing, China.
Xueliang ZhangDepartment of Oncology, Jiamusi Cancer Hospital, Jiamusi, China.
Jun MaCollege of Information Engineering, Changsha Medical University, Changsha, China.
Bingsheng HeAcademician Workstation, Changsha Medical University, Changsha, China.
Jialiang YangAcademician Workstation, Changsha Medical University, Changsha, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Carcinoma of unknown primary (CUP) is a type of metastatic cancer, the primary tumor site of which cannot be identified. CUP occupies approximately 5% of cancer incidences in the United States with usually unfavorable prognosis, making it a big threat to public health. Traditional methods to identify the tissue-of-origin (TOO) of CUP like immunohistochemistry can only deal with around 20% CUP patients. In recent years, more and more studies suggest that it is promising to solve the problem by integrating machine learning techniques with big biomedical data involving multiple types of biomarkers including epigenetic, genetic, and gene expression profiles, such as DNA methylation. Different biomarkers play different roles in cancer research; for example, genomic mutations in a patient's tumor could lead to specific anticancer drugs for treatment; DNA methylation and copy number variation could reveal tumor tissue of origin and molecular classification. However, there is no systematic comparison on which biomarker is better at identifying the cancer type and site of origin. In addition, it might also be possible to further improve the inference accuracy by integrating multiple types of biomarkers. In this study, we used primary tumor data rather than metastatic tumor data. Although the use of primary tumors may lead to some biases in our classification model, their tumor-of-origins are known. In addition, previous studies have suggested that the CUP prediction model built from primary tumors could efficiently predict TOO of metastatic cancers (Lal et al., 2013; Brachtel et al., 2016). We systematically compared the performances of three types of biomarkers including DNA methylation, gene expression profile, and somatic mutation as well as their combinations in inferring the TOO of CUP patients. First, we downloaded the gene expression profile, somatic mutation and DNA methylation data of 7,224 tumor samples across 21 common cancer types from the cancer genome atlas (TCGA) and generated seven different feature matrices through various combinations. Second, we performed feature selection by the Pearson correlation method. The selected features for each matrix were used to build up an XGBoost multi-label classification model to infer cancer TOO, an algorithm proven to be effective in a few previous studies. The performance of each biomarker and combination was compared by the 10-fold cross-validation process. Our results showed that the TOO tracing accuracy using gene expression profile was the highest, followed by DNA methylation, while somatic mutation performed the worst. Meanwhile, we found that simply combining multiple biomarkers does not have much effect in improving prediction accuracy.

Indexed as

DNA methylationgene expressionmulti-classifier XGBoostpearson correlation algorithmsomatic mutationtumor tissue-of-origin

Identifiers

PMID34012960
PMCPMC8126648

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.