A comparison of survival analysis methods for cancer gene expression RNA-Sequencing data.


Journal

Cancer genetics
ISSN: 2210-7762
Titre abrégé: Cancer Genet
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101539150

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
06 2019
Historique:
received: 15 11 2018
revised: 19 03 2019
accepted: 09 04 2019
entrez: 13 7 2019
pubmed: 13 7 2019
medline: 7 3 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Identifying genetic biomarkers of patient survival remains a major goal of large-scale cancer profiling studies. Using gene expression data to predict the outcome of a patient's tumor makes biomarker discovery a compelling tool for improving patient care. As genomic technologies expand, multiple data types may serve as informative biomarkers, and bioinformatic strategies have evolved around these different applications. For categorical variables such as a gene's mutation status, biomarker identification to predict survival time is straightforward. However, for continuous variables like gene expression, the available methods generate highly-variable results, and studies on best practices are lacking. We investigated the performance of eight methods that deal specifically with continuous data. K-means, Cox regression, concordance index, D-index, 25th-75th percentile split, median-split, distribution-based splitting, and KaplanScan were applied to four RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq) datasets from the Cancer Genome Atlas. The reliability of the eight methods was assessed by splitting each dataset into two groups and comparing the overlap of the results. Gene sets that had been identified from the literature for a specific tumor type served as positive controls to assess the accuracy of each biomarker using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Artificial RNA-Seq data were generated to test the robustness of these methods under fixed levels of gene expression noise. Our results show that methods based on dichotomizing tend to have consistently poor performance while C-index, D-index, and k-means perform well in most settings. Overall, the Cox regression method had the strongest performance based on tests of accuracy, reliability, and robustness.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31296308
pii: S2210-7762(18)30489-7
doi: 10.1016/j.cancergen.2019.04.004
pii:
doi:

Substances chimiques

Biomarkers, Tumor 0

Types de publication

Comparative Study Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1-12

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Pichai Raman (P)

School of Biomedical Engineering, Sciences and Health Systems, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, United States; Department of Biomedical and Health Informatics, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, United States; Center for Data-Driven Discovery in Biomedicine, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, United States. Electronic address: ramanp@email.chop.edu.

Samuel Zimmerman (S)

Department of Systems and Computational Biology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, United States. Electronic address: sezimmer@einstein.yu.edu.

Komal S Rathi (KS)

Department of Biomedical and Health Informatics, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, United States; Center for Data-Driven Discovery in Biomedicine, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, United States. Electronic address: rathik@email.chop.edu.

Laurence de Torrenté (L)

Department of Systems and Computational Biology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, United States. Electronic address: ldetorrente@nygenome.org.

Mahdi Sarmady (M)

Division of Genomic Diagnostics, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, United States; Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Electronic address: sarmadym@email.chop.edu.

Chao Wu (C)

Division of Genomic Diagnostics, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, United States. Electronic address: wuc8@email.chop.edu.

Jeremy Leipzig (J)

Division of Genomic Diagnostics, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, United States; College of Computing and Informatics, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, United States. Electronic address: leipzig@panoramamedicine.com.

Deanne M Taylor (DM)

Department of Biomedical and Health Informatics, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, United States; The Department of Pediatrics, The University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Electronic address: taylordm@email.chop.edu.

Aydin Tozeren (A)

School of Biomedical Engineering, Sciences and Health Systems, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, United States. Electronic address: at62@drexel.edu.

Jessica C Mar (JC)

Department of Systems and Computational Biology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, United States; Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, United States; Australian Institute for Bioengineering and Nanotechnology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. Electronic address: j.mar@uq.edu.au.

Articles similaires

[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
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH