Dataset Information

Comparison of pathway and gene-level models for cancer prognosis prediction.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Cancer prognosis prediction is valuable for patients and clinicians because it allows them to appropriately manage care. A promising direction for improving the performance and interpretation of expression-based predictive models involves the aggregation of gene-level data into biological pathways. While many studies have used pathway-level predictors for cancer survival analysis, a comprehensive comparison of pathway-level and gene-level prognostic models has not been performed. To address this gap, we characterized the performance of penalized Cox proportional hazard models built using either pathway- or gene-level predictors for the cancers profiled in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and pathways from the Molecular Signatures Database (MSigDB). RESULTS:When analyzing TCGA data, we found that pathway-level models are more parsimonious, more robust, more computationally efficient and easier to interpret than gene-level models with similar predictive performance. For example, both pathway-level and gene-level models have an average Cox concordance index of ~ 0.85 for the TCGA glioma cohort, however, the gene-level model has twice as many predictors on average, the predictor composition is less stable across cross-validation folds and estimation takes 40 times as long as compared to the pathway-level model. When the complex correlation structure of the data is broken by permutation, the pathway-level model has greater predictive performance while still retaining superior interpretative power, robustness, parsimony and computational efficiency relative to the gene-level models. For example, the average concordance index of the pathway-level model increases to 0.88 while the gene-level model falls to 0.56 for the TCGA glioma cohort using survival times simulated from uncorrelated gene expression data. CONCLUSION:The results of this study show that when the correlations among gene expression values are low, pathway-level analyses can yield better predictive performance, greater interpretative power, more robust models and less computational cost relative to a gene-level model. When correlations among genes are high, a pathway-level analysis provides equivalent predictive power compared to a gene-level analysis while retaining the advantages of interpretability, robustness and computational efficiency.

SUBMITTER: Zheng X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7048092 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGenomic profiling of solid human tumors by projects such as The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) has provided important information regarding the somatic alterations that drive cancer progression and patient survival. Although researchers have successfully leveraged TCGA data to build prognostic models, most efforts have focused on specific cancer types and a targeted set of gene-level predictors. Less is known about the prognostic ability of pathway-level variables in a pan-cancer setting. To address these limitations, we systematically evaluated and compared the prognostic ability of somatic point mutation (SPM) and copy number variation (CNV) data, gene-level and pathway-level models for a diverse set of TCGA cancer types and predictive modeling approaches.ResultsWe evaluated gene-level and pathway-level penalized Cox proportional hazards models using SPM and CNV data for 29 different TCGA cohorts. We measured predictive accuracy as the concordance index for predicting survival outcomes. Our comprehensive analysis suggests that the use of pathway-level predictors did not offer superior predictive power relative to gene-level models for all cancer types but had the advantages of robustness and parsimony. We identified a set of cohorts for which somatic alterations could not predict prognosis, and a unique cohort LGG, for which SPM data was more predictive than CNV data and the predictive accuracy is good for all model types. We found that the pathway-level predictors provide superior interpretative value and that there is often a serious collinearity issue for the gene-level models while pathway-level models avoided this issue.ConclusionOur comprehensive analysis suggests that when using somatic alterations data for cancer prognosis prediction, pathway-level models are more interpretable, stable and parsimonious compared to gene-level models. Pathway-level models also avoid the issue of collinearity, which can be serious for gene-level somatic alterations. The prognostic power of somatic alterations is highly variable across different cancer types and we have identified a set of cohorts for which somatic alterations could not predict prognosis. In general, CNV data predicts prognosis better than SPM data with the exception of the LGG cohort.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Cancer survival studies are commonly analyzed using survival-time prediction models for cancer prognosis. A number of different performance metrics are used to ascertain the concordance between the predicted risk score of each patient and the actual survival time, but these metrics can sometimes conflict. Alternatively, patients are sometimes divided into two classes according to a survival-time threshold, and binary classifiers are applied to predict each patient's class. Although this approach has several drawbacks, it does provide natural performance metrics such as positive and negative predictive values to enable unambiguous assessments. METHODS: We compare the survival-time prediction and survival-time threshold approaches to analyzing cancer survival studies. We review and compare common performance metrics for the two approaches. We present new randomization tests and cross-validation methods to enable unambiguous statistical inferences for several performance metrics used with the survival-time prediction approach. We consider five survival prediction models consisting of one clinical model, two gene expression models, and two models from combinations of clinical and gene expression models. RESULTS: A public breast cancer dataset was used to compare several performance metrics using five prediction models. 1) For some prediction models, the hazard ratio from fitting a Cox proportional hazards model was significant, but the two-group comparison was insignificant, and vice versa. 2) The randomization test and cross-validation were generally consistent with the p-values obtained from the standard performance metrics. 3) Binary classifiers highly depended on how the risk groups were defined; a slight change of the survival threshold for assignment of classes led to very different prediction results. CONCLUSIONS: 1) Different performance metrics for evaluation of a survival prediction model may give different conclusions in its discriminatory ability. 2) Evaluation using a high-risk versus low-risk group comparison depends on the selected risk-score threshold; a plot of p-values from all possible thresholds can show the sensitivity of the threshold selection. 3) A randomization test of the significance of Somers' rank correlation can be used for further evaluation of performance of a prediction model. 4) The cross-validated power of survival prediction models decreases as the training and test sets become less balanced.

Project description:BackgroundLung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. The recurrence rate ranges from 35-50% among early stage non-small cell lung cancer patients. To date, there is no fully-validated and clinically applied prognostic gene signature for personalized treatment.Methodology/principal findingsFrom genome-wide mRNA expression profiles generated on 256 lung adenocarcinoma patients, a 12-gene signature was identified using combinatorial gene selection methods, and a risk score algorithm was developed with Naïve Bayes. The 12-gene model generates significant patient stratification in the training cohort HLM & UM (n = 256; log-rank P = 6.96e-7) and two independent validation sets, MSK (n = 104; log-rank P = 9.88e-4) and DFCI (n = 82; log-rank P = 2.57e-4), using Kaplan-Meier analyses. This gene signature also stratifies stage I and IB lung adenocarcinoma patients into two distinct survival groups (log-rank P<0.04). The 12-gene risk score is more significant (hazard ratio = 4.19, 95% CI: [2.08, 8.46]) than other commonly used clinical factors except tumor stage (III vs. I) in multivariate Cox analyses. The 12-gene model is more accurate than previously published lung cancer gene signatures on the same datasets. Furthermore, this signature accurately predicts chemoresistance/chemosensitivity to Cisplatin, Carboplatin, Paclitaxel, Etoposide, Erlotinib, and Gefitinib in NCI-60 cancer cell lines (P<0.017). The identified 12 genes exhibit curated interactions with major lung cancer signaling hallmarks in functional pathway analysis. The expression patterns of the signature genes have been confirmed in RT-PCR analyses of independent tumor samples.Conclusions/significanceThe results demonstrate the clinical utility of the identified gene signature in prognostic categorization. With this 12-gene risk score algorithm, early stage patients at high risk for tumor recurrence could be identified for adjuvant chemotherapy; whereas stage I and II patients at low risk could be spared the toxic side effects of chemotherapeutic drugs.

Project description:Objective: This work aims to systematically identify, describe, and appraise all prognostic models for cervical cancer and provide a reference for clinical practice and future research. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases up to December 2020 and included studies developing, validating, or updating a prognostic model for cervical cancer. Two reviewers extracted information based on the CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modeling Studies checklist and assessed the risk of bias using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool. Results: Fifty-six eligible articles were identified, describing the development of 77 prognostic models and 27 external validation efforts. The 77 prognostic models focused on three types of cervical cancer patients at different stages, i.e., patients with early-stage cervical cancer (n = 29; 38%), patients with locally advanced cervical cancer (n = 27; 35%), and all-stage cervical cancer patients (n = 21; 27%). Among the 77 models, the most frequently used predictors were lymph node status (n = 57; 74%), the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage (n = 42; 55%), histological types (n = 38; 49%), and tumor size (n = 37; 48%). The number of models that applied internal validation, presented a full equation, and assessed model calibration was 52 (68%), 16 (21%), and 45 (58%), respectively. Twenty-four models were externally validated, among which three were validated twice. None of the models were assessed with an overall low risk of bias. The Prediction Model of Failure in Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer model was externally validated twice, with acceptable performance, and seemed to be the most reliable. Conclusions: Methodological details including internal validation, sample size, and handling of missing data need to be emphasized on, and external validation is needed to facilitate the application and generalization of models for cervical cancer.

Dataset Information

Comparison of pathway and gene-level models for cancer prognosis prediction.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets