Breast cancer PAM50 signature: correlation and concordance between RNA-Seq and digital multiplexed gene expression technologies in a triple negative breast cancer series.
Biomarkers, Tumor
/ genetics
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Gene Expression Profiling
/ methods
Gene Expression Regulation, Neoplastic
High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing
/ methods
Humans
Male
Neoplasm Recurrence, Local
/ genetics
Prognosis
Prospective Studies
Triple Negative Breast Neoplasms
/ genetics
Breast cancer
Multiplexed gene expression
PAM50
RNA-Seq
Triple negative breast cancer
Journal
BMC genomics
ISSN: 1471-2164
Titre abrégé: BMC Genomics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100965258
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 Jun 2019
03 Jun 2019
Historique:
received:
28
09
2018
accepted:
27
05
2019
entrez:
5
6
2019
pubmed:
5
6
2019
medline:
8
11
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Full RNA-Seq is a fundamental research tool for whole transcriptome analysis. However, it is too costly and time consuming to be used in routine clinical practice. We evaluated the transcript quantification agreement between RNA-Seq and a digital multiplexed gene expression platform, and the subtype call after running the PAM50 assay in a series of breast cancer patients classified as triple negative by IHC/FISH. The goal of this study is to analyze the concordance between both expression platforms overall, and for calling PAM50 triple negative breast cancer intrinsic subtypes in particular. The analyses were performed in paraffin-embedded tissues from 96 patients recruited in a multicenter, prospective, non-randomized neoadjuvant triple negative breast cancer trial (NCT01560663). Pre-treatment core biopsies were obtained following clinical practice guidelines and conserved as FFPE for further RNA extraction. PAM50 was performed on both digital multiplexed gene expression and RNA-Seq platforms. Subtype assignment was based on the nearest centroid classification following this procedure for both platforms and it was concordant on 96% of the cases (N = 96). In four cases, digital multiplexed gene expression analysis and RNA-Seq were discordant. The Spearman correlation to each of the centroids and the risk of recurrence were above 0.89 in both platforms while the agreement on Proliferation Score reached up to 0.97. In addition, 82% of the individual PAM50 genes showed a correlation coefficient > 0.80. In our analysis, the subtype calling in most of the samples was concordant in both platforms and the potential discordances had reduced clinical implications in terms of prognosis. If speed and cost are the main driving forces then the preferred technique is the digital multiplexed platform, while if whole genome patterns and subtype are the driving forces, then RNA-Seq is the preferred method.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Full RNA-Seq is a fundamental research tool for whole transcriptome analysis. However, it is too costly and time consuming to be used in routine clinical practice. We evaluated the transcript quantification agreement between RNA-Seq and a digital multiplexed gene expression platform, and the subtype call after running the PAM50 assay in a series of breast cancer patients classified as triple negative by IHC/FISH. The goal of this study is to analyze the concordance between both expression platforms overall, and for calling PAM50 triple negative breast cancer intrinsic subtypes in particular.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The analyses were performed in paraffin-embedded tissues from 96 patients recruited in a multicenter, prospective, non-randomized neoadjuvant triple negative breast cancer trial (NCT01560663). Pre-treatment core biopsies were obtained following clinical practice guidelines and conserved as FFPE for further RNA extraction. PAM50 was performed on both digital multiplexed gene expression and RNA-Seq platforms. Subtype assignment was based on the nearest centroid classification following this procedure for both platforms and it was concordant on 96% of the cases (N = 96). In four cases, digital multiplexed gene expression analysis and RNA-Seq were discordant. The Spearman correlation to each of the centroids and the risk of recurrence were above 0.89 in both platforms while the agreement on Proliferation Score reached up to 0.97. In addition, 82% of the individual PAM50 genes showed a correlation coefficient > 0.80.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In our analysis, the subtype calling in most of the samples was concordant in both platforms and the potential discordances had reduced clinical implications in terms of prognosis. If speed and cost are the main driving forces then the preferred technique is the digital multiplexed platform, while if whole genome patterns and subtype are the driving forces, then RNA-Seq is the preferred method.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31159741
doi: 10.1186/s12864-019-5849-0
pii: 10.1186/s12864-019-5849-0
pmc: PMC6547580
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers, Tumor
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
452Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P50 CA058223
Pays : United States
Organisme : Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad, Gobierno de España
ID : PI 12/02684
Organisme : Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad, Gobierno de España
ID : PI 15/00117
Organisme : NIEHS NIH HHS
ID : P30 ES010126
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P50-CA58223
Pays : United States
Références
Clin Cancer Res. 2015 May 15;21(10):2367-78
pubmed: 25301847
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Nov 1;31(31):3997-4013
pubmed: 24101045
Clin Cancer Res. 2017 Feb 1;23(3):649-657
pubmed: 27301700
BMC Pulm Med. 2017 Jan 12;17(1):15
pubmed: 28081703
Psychol Bull. 1979 Mar;86(2):420-8
pubmed: 18839484
BMC Med Genomics. 2012 Oct 04;5:44
pubmed: 23035882
Nat Biotechnol. 2008 Mar;26(3):317-25
pubmed: 18278033
F1000Res. 2018 Aug 24;7:1338
pubmed: 30254741
Ann Oncol. 2014 Feb;25(2):339-45
pubmed: 24347518
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jun 1;28(16):2784-95
pubmed: 20404251
Nature. 2000 Aug 17;406(6797):747-52
pubmed: 10963602
BMC Biotechnol. 2011 May 09;11:46
pubmed: 21549012
PLoS One. 2016 May 13;11(5):e0153784
pubmed: 27176004
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Mar 10;27(8):1160-7
pubmed: 19204204
Nat Rev Genet. 2009 Jan;10(1):57-63
pubmed: 19015660
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2011 Dec 06;9(1):48-57
pubmed: 22143140
BMC Cancer. 2017 Apr 4;17(1):241
pubmed: 28376728
Nucleic Acids Res. 2019 Jan 8;47(D1):D853-D858
pubmed: 30407534
Oncologist. 2015 May;20(5):474-82
pubmed: 25908555
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Aug 1;31(22):2783-90
pubmed: 23816962
Clin Cancer Res. 2010 Nov 1;16(21):5222-32
pubmed: 20837693
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Sep 11;98(19):10869-74
pubmed: 11553815
BMC Genomics. 2014 Jun 02;15:419
pubmed: 24888378
BMC Genomics. 2006 Apr 27;7:96
pubmed: 16643655