Dataset Information

A comparative study of PCS and PAM50 prostate cancer classification schemes.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Two prostate cancer (PC) classification methods based on transcriptome profiles, a de novo method referred to as the "Prostate Cancer Classification System" (PCS) and a variation of the established PAM50 breast cancer algorithm, were recently proposed. Both studies concluded that most human PC can be assigned to one of three tumor subtypes, two categorized as luminal and one as basal, suggesting the two methods reflect consistency in underlying biology. Despite the similarity, differences and commonalities between the two classification methods have not yet been reported.

Methods

Here, we describe a comparison of the PCS and PAM50 classification systems. PCS and PAM50 signatures consisting of 37 (PCS37) and 50 genes, respectively, were used to categorize 9,947 PC patients into PCS and PAM50 classes. Enrichment of hallmark gene sets and luminal and basal marker gene expression were assessed in the same datasets. Finally, survival analysis was performed to compare PCS and PAM50 subtypes in terms of clinical outcomes.

Results

PCS and PAM50 subtypes show clear differential expression of PCS37 and PAM50 genes. While only three genes are shared in common between the two systems, there is some consensus between three subtype pairs (PCS1 versus Luminal B, PCS2 versus Luminal A, and PCS3 versus Basal) with respect to gene expression, cellular processes, and clinical outcomes. PCS categories displayed better separation of cellular processes and luminal and basal marker gene expression compared to PAM50. Although both PCS1 and Luminal B tumors exhibited the worst clinical outcomes, outcomes between aggressive and less aggressive subtypes were better defined in the PCS system, based on larger hazard ratios observed.

Conclusion

The PCS and PAM50 classification systems are similar in terms of molecular profiles and clinical outcomes. However, the PCS system exhibits greater separation in multiple clinical outcomes and provides better separation of prostate luminal and basal characteristics.

SUBMITTER: Yoon J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8326303 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCombining targeted biopsy (TB) with systematic biopsy (SB) is currently recommended as the first-line biopsy method by the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines in patients diagnosed with prostate cancer (PCa) with an abnormal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The combined SB and TB indeed detected an additional number of patients with clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa); however, it did so at the expense of a concomitant increase in biopsy cores. Our study aimed to evaluate if ipsilateral SB (ipsi-SB) + TB or contralateral SB (contra-SB) + TB could achieve almost equal csPCa detection rates as SB + TB using fewer cores based on a different csPCa definition.MethodsPatients with at least one positive prostate lesion were prospectively diagnosed by MRI. The combination of TB and SB was conducted in all patients. We compared the csPCa detection rates of the following four hypothetical biopsy sampling schemes with those of SB + TB: SB, TB, ipsi-SB + TB, and contra-SB + TB.ResultsThe study enrolled 279 men. The median core of SB, TB, ipsi-SB + TB, and contra-SB + TB was 10, 2, 7 and 7, respectively (P < 0.001). ipsi-SB + TB detected significantly more patients with csPCa than contra-SB + TB based on the EAU guidelines (P = 0.042). They were almost equal on the basis of the Epstein criteria (P = 1.000). Compared with SB + TB, each remaining method detected significantly fewer patients with csPCa regardless of the definition (P < 0.001) except ipsi-SB + TB on the grounds of D1 (P = 0.066). Ten additional subjects were identified with a higher Gleason score (GS) on contra-SB + TB, and only one was considered as significantly upgraded (GS = 6 on ipsi-SB + TB to a GS of 8 on contra-SB + TB).ConclusionsIpsi-SB + TB could acquire an almost equivalent csPCa detection value to SB + TB using significantly fewer cores when csPCa was defined according to the EAU guidelines. Given that there was only one significantly upgrading patient on contra-SB, our results suggested that contra-SB could be avoided.

Project description:BackgroundMultivariate assays (MVAs) for assisting clinical decisions are becoming commonly available, but due to complexity, are often considered a high-risk approach. A key concern is that uncertainty on the assay's final results is not well understood. This study focuses on developing a process to characterize error introduced in the MVA's results from the intrinsic error in the laboratory process: sample preparation and measurement of the contributing factors, such as gene expression.MethodsUsing the PAM50 Breast Cancer Intrinsic Classifier, we show how to characterize error within an MVA, and how these errors may affect results reported to clinicians. First we estimated the error distribution for measured factors within the PAM50 assay by performing repeated measures on four archetypal samples representative of the major breast cancer tumor subtypes. Then, using the error distributions and the original archetypal sample data, we used Monte Carlo simulations to generate a sufficient number of simulated samples. The effect of these errors on the PAM50 tumor subtype classification was estimated by measuring subtype reproducibility after classifying all simulated samples. Subtype reproducibility was measured as the percentage of simulated samples classified identically to the parent sample. The simulation was thereafter repeated on a large, independent data set of samples from the GEICAM 9906 clinical trial. Simulated samples from the GEICAM sample set were used to explore a more realistic scenario where, unlike archetypal samples, many samples are not easily classified.ResultsAll simulated samples derived from the archetypal samples were classified identically to the parent sample. Subtypes for simulated samples from the GEICAM set were also highly reproducible, but there were a non-negligible number of samples that exhibit significant variability in their classification.ConclusionsWe have developed a general methodology to estimate the effects of intrinsic errors within MVAs. We have applied the method to the PAM50 assay, showing that the PAM50 results are resilient to intrinsic errors within the assay, but also finding that in non-archetypal samples, experimental errors can lead to quite different classification of a tumor. Finally we propose a way to provide the uncertainty information in a usable way for clinicians.