Breast cancer PAM50 signature: correlation and concordance between RNA-Seq and digital multiplexed gene expression technologies in a triple negative breast cancer series.


Journal

BMC genomics
ISSN: 1471-2164
Titre abrégé: BMC Genomics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100965258

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
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

452

Subventions

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

Auteurs

A C Picornell (AC)

Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañón (IiSGM), Doctor Esquerdo 46, 28007, Madrid, Spain. antonio.picornell@iisgm.com.

I Echavarria (I)

Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.

E Alvarez (E)

Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañón (IiSGM), Doctor Esquerdo 46, 28007, Madrid, Spain.

S López-Tarruella (S)

Medical Oncology Service, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañón (IiSGM). CiberOnc, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.

Y Jerez (Y)

Medical Oncology Service, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañón (IiSGM). CiberOnc, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.

K Hoadley (K)

Department of Genetics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.

J S Parker (JS)

Department of Genetics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.

M Del Monte-Millán (M)

Medical Oncology Service, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañón (IiSGM). CiberOnc, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.

R Ramos-Medina (R)

Medical Oncology Service, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañón (IiSGM). CiberOnc, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.

J Gayarre (J)

Medical Oncology Service, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañón (IiSGM). CiberOnc, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.

I Ocaña (I)

Medical Oncology Service, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañón (IiSGM). CiberOnc, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.

M Cebollero (M)

Anatomical Pathology Service, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.

T Massarrah (T)

Medical Oncology Service, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañón (IiSGM). CiberOnc, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.

F Moreno (F)

Medical Oncology Service, Hospital Universitario Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain.

J A García Saenz (JA)

Medical Oncology Service, Hospital Universitario Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain.

H Gómez Moreno (H)

Medicina Oncológic, Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplásicas (INEN), Lima, Peru.

A Ballesteros (A)

Medical Oncology Service, Hospital Universitario de La Princesa, Madrid, Spain.

M Ruiz Borrego (M)

Hospital Virgen del Rocío, Sevilla, Spain.

C M Perou (CM)

Department of Genetics, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.

M Martin (M)

Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañón (IiSGM), Universidad Complutense, CiberOnc, GEICAM, Madrid, Spain.

Articles similaires

Genome, Chloroplast Phylogeny Genetic Markers Base Composition High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C

Classifications MeSH