Dataset Information

Development of robust discriminant equations for assessing subtypes of glioblastoma biopsies.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In the preceding decade, various studies on glioblastoma (Gb) demonstrated that signatures obtained from gene expression microarrays correlate better with survival than with histopathological classification. However, there is not a universal consensus formula to predict patient survival.

Methods

We developed a gene signature using the expression profile of 47 Gbs through an unsupervised procedure and two groups were obtained. Subsequent to a training procedure through leave-one-out cross-validation, we fitted a discriminant (linear discriminant analysis (LDA)) equation using the four most discriminant probesets. This was repeated for two other published signatures and the performance of LDA equations was evaluated on an independent test set, which contained status of IDH1 mutation, EGFR amplification, MGMT methylation and gene VEGF expression, among other clinical and molecular information.

Results

The unsupervised local signature was composed of 69 probesets and clearly defined two Gb groups, which would agree with primary and secondary Gbs. This hypothesis was confirmed by predicting cases from the independent data set using the equations developed by us. The high survival group predicted by equations based on our local and one of the published signatures contained a significantly higher percentage of cases displaying IDH1 mutation and non-amplification of EGFR. In contrast, only the equation based on the published signature showed in the poor survival group a significant high percentage of cases displaying a hypothesised methylation of MGMT gene promoter and overexpression of gene VEGF.

Conclusion

We have produced a robust equation to confidently discriminate Gb subtypes based in the normalised expression level of only four genes.

SUBMITTER: Castells X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3364559 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Colorectal cancer (CRC) biopsies underpin accurate diagnosis, but are also relevant for patient stratification in molecularly-guided clinical trials. The consensus molecular subtypes (CMSs) and colorectal cancer intrinsic subtypes (CRISs) transcriptional signatures have potential clinical utility for improving prognostic/predictive patient assignment. However, their ability to provide robust classification, particularly in pretreatment biopsies from multiple regions or at different time points, remains untested. In this study, we undertook a comprehensive assessment of the robustness of CRC transcriptional signatures, including CRIS and CMS, using a range of tumour sampling methodologies currently employed in clinical and translational research. These include analyses using (i) laser-capture microdissected CRC tissue, (ii) eight publically available rectal cancer biopsy data sets (n = 543), (iii) serial biopsies (from AXEBeam trial, NCT00828672; n = 10), (iv) multi-regional biopsies from colon tumours (n = 29 biopsies, n = 7 tumours), and (v) pretreatment biopsies from the phase II rectal cancer trial COPERNCIUS (NCT01263171; n = 44). Compared to previous results obtained using CRC resection material, we demonstrate that CMS classification in biopsy tissue is significantly less capable of reliably classifying patient subtype (43% unknown in biopsy versus 13% unknown in resections, p = 0.0001). In contrast, there was no significant difference in classification rate between biopsies and resections when using the CRIS classifier. Additionally, we demonstrated that CRIS provides significantly better spatially- and temporally- robust classification of molecular subtypes in CRC primary tumour tissue compared to CMS (p = 0.003 and p = 0.02, respectively). These findings have potential to inform ongoing biopsy-based patient stratification in CRC, enabling robust and stable assignment of patients into clinically-informative arms of prospective multi-arm, multi-stage clinical trials. © 2018 The Authors. The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

Project description:Data are the foundation of empirical research, yet all too often the datasets underlying published papers are unavailable, incorrect, or poorly curated. This is a serious issue, because future researchers are then unable to validate published results or reuse data to explore new ideas and hypotheses. Even if data files are securely stored and accessible, they must also be accompanied by accurate labels and identifiers. To assess how often problems with metadata or data curation affect the reproducibility of published results, we attempted to reproduce Discriminant Function Analyses (DFAs) from the field of organismal biology. DFA is a commonly used statistical analysis that has changed little since its inception almost eight decades ago, and therefore provides an opportunity to test reproducibility among datasets of varying ages. Out of 100 papers we initially surveyed, fourteen were excluded because they did not present the common types of quantitative result from their DFA or gave insufficient details of their DFA. Of the remaining 86 datasets, there were 15 cases for which we were unable to confidently relate the dataset we received to the one used in the published analysis. The reasons ranged from incomprehensible or absent variable labels, the DFA being performed on an unspecified subset of the data, or the dataset we received being incomplete. We focused on reproducing three common summary statistics from DFAs: the percent variance explained, the percentage correctly assigned and the largest discriminant function coefficient. The reproducibility of the first two was fairly high (20 of 26, and 44 of 60 datasets, respectively), whereas our success rate with the discriminant function coefficients was lower (15 of 26 datasets). When considering all three summary statistics, we were able to completely reproduce 46 (65%) of 71 datasets. While our results show that a majority of studies are reproducible, they highlight the fact that many studies still are not the carefully curated research that the scientific community and public expects.