Decision theory for precision therapy of breast cancer.
Algorithms
Biomarkers, Tumor
Breast Neoplasms
/ diagnosis
Clinical Decision-Making
Databases, Factual
Decision Theory
Disease Management
Disease Susceptibility
Female
Gene Expression Regulation, Neoplastic
Humans
Immunohistochemistry
Molecular Diagnostic Techniques
Precision Medicine
/ methods
Prognosis
Treatment Outcome
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 02 2021
19 02 2021
Historique:
received:
26
06
2020
accepted:
11
01
2021
entrez:
20
2
2021
pubmed:
21
2
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Correctly estimating the hormone receptor status for estrogen (ER) and progesterone (PGR) is crucial for precision therapy of breast cancer. It is known that conventional diagnostics (immunohistochemistry, IHC) yields a significant rate of wrongly diagnosed receptor status. Here we demonstrate how Dempster Shafer decision Theory (DST) enhances diagnostic precision by adding information from gene expression. We downloaded data of 3753 breast cancer patients from Gene Expression Omnibus. Information from IHC and gene expression was fused according to DST, and the clinical criterion for receptor positivity was re-modelled along DST. Receptor status predicted according to DST was compared with conventional assessment via IHC and gene-expression, and deviations were flagged as questionable. The survival of questionable cases turned out significantly worse (Kaplan Meier p < 1%) than for patients with receptor status confirmed by DST, indicating a substantial enhancement of diagnostic precision via DST. This study is not only relevant for precision medicine but also paves the way for introducing decision theory into OMICS data science.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33608588
doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-82418-7
pii: 10.1038/s41598-021-82418-7
pmc: PMC7895957
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers, Tumor
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
4233Références
Toss, A. & Cristofanilli, M. Molecular characterization and targeted therapeutic approaches in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 17, 60 (2015).
pubmed: 25902832
pmcid: 4407294
doi: 10.1186/s13058-015-0560-9
Dowsett, M. et al. Comparison of PAM50 risk of recurrence score with oncotype DX and IHC4 for predicting risk of distant recurrence after endocrine therapy. J. Clin. Oncol. 31, 2783–2790 (2013).
pubmed: 23816962
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.46.1558
Prat, A., Ellis, M. J. & Perou, C. M. Practical implications of gene-expression-based assays for breast oncologists. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 9, 48–57 (2011).
pubmed: 22143140
pmcid: 3703639
doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2011.178
Desmedt, C. et al. Biological processes associated with breast cancer clinical outcome depend on the molecular subtypes. Clin. Cancer. Res. 14, 5158–5165 (2008).
pubmed: 18698033
doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-4756
Kao, K. J., Chang, K. M., Hsu, H. C. & Huang, A. T. Correlation of microarray-based breast cancer molecular subtypes and clinical outcomes: implications for treatment optimization. BMC Cancer 11, 143 (2011).
pubmed: 21501481
pmcid: 3094326
doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-11-143
Jezequel, P. et al. Gene-expression molecular subtyping of triple-negative breast cancer tumours: importance of immune response. Breast Cancer Res. 17, 43 (2015).
pubmed: 25887482
pmcid: 4389408
doi: 10.1186/s13058-015-0550-y
Burstein, M. D. et al. Comprehensive genomic analysis identifies novel subtypes and targets of triple-negative breast cancer. Clin. Cancer. Res. 21, 1688–1698 (2015).
pubmed: 25208879
doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-0432
Wu, G. & Stein, L. A network module-based method for identifying cancer prognostic signatures. Genome Biol. 13, R112 (2012).
pubmed: 23228031
pmcid: 3580410
doi: 10.1186/gb-2012-13-12-r112
Liu, R., Guo, C. X. & Zhou, H. H. Network-based approach to identify prognostic biomarkers for estrogen receptorGÇôpositive breast cancer treatment with tamoxifen. Cancer Biol. Ther. 16, 317–324 (2015).
pubmed: 25756514
pmcid: 4622923
doi: 10.1080/15384047.2014.1002360
Korde, L. A. et al. Gene expression pathway analysis to predict response to neoadjuvant docetaxel and capecitabine for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 119, 685–699 (2010).
pubmed: 20012355
pmcid: 5892182
doi: 10.1007/s10549-009-0651-3
Clarke, C. et al. Correlating transcriptional networks to breast cancer survival: a large-scale coexpression analysis. Carcinogenesis 34, 2300–2308 (2013).
pubmed: 23740839
doi: 10.1093/carcin/bgt208
Aswad, L. et al. Genome and transcriptome delineation of two major oncogenic pathways governing invasive ductal breast cancer development. Oncotarget 6, 36652–36674 (2015).
pubmed: 26474389
pmcid: 4742202
doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.5543
Filipits, M. et al. A new molecular predictor of distant recurrence in ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer adds independent information to conventional clinical risk factors. Clin. Cancer. Res. 17, 6012–6020 (2011).
pubmed: 21807638
doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-0926
Zhao, X. et al. Systematic assessment of prognostic gene signatures for breast cancer shows distinct influence of time and ER status. BMC. Cancer 14, 211 (2014).
pubmed: 24645668
pmcid: 4000128
doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-14-211
van’t Veer, L. J. et al. Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature 415, 530–536 (2002).
doi: 10.1038/415530a
van de Vijver, M. J. et al. A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 347, 1999–2009 (2002).
pubmed: 12490681
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa021967
Paik, S. et al. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 351, 2817–2826 (2004).
pubmed: 15591335
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa041588
Lu, X. et al. Predicting features of breast cancer with gene expression patterns. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 108, 191–201 (2008).
pubmed: 18297396
doi: 10.1007/s10549-007-9596-6
Budczies, J. et al. Genome-wide gene expression profiling of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded breast cancer core biopsies using microarrays. J Histochem. Cytochem 59, 146–157 (2011).
pubmed: 21339180
pmcid: 3201135
doi: 10.1369/jhc.2010.956607
Lin, C. Y. et al. Discovery of estrogen receptor a target genes and response elements in breast tumor cells. Genome Biol. 5, R66 (2004).
pubmed: 15345050
pmcid: 522873
doi: 10.1186/gb-2004-5-9-r66
Liu, M. C. et al. PAM50 gene signatures and breast cancer prognosis with adjuvant anthracycline- and taxane-based chemotherapy: correlative analysis of C9741 (Alliance). Npj Breast Cancer 2, 15023 (2016).
pubmed: 28691057
pmcid: 5501351
doi: 10.1038/npjbcancer.2015.23
Prat, A. et al. Research-based PAM50 subtype predictor identifies higher responses and improved survival outcomes in HER2-positive breast cancer in the NOAH study. Clin. Cancer. Res. 20, 511–521 (2014).
pubmed: 24443618
doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-0239
Wishart, G. C. et al. PREDICT: a new UK prognostic model that predicts survival following surgery for invasive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 12, R1 (2010).
pubmed: 20053270
pmcid: 2880419
doi: 10.1186/bcr2464
Desmedt, C. et al. The gene expression grade index: a potential predictor of relapse for endocrine-treated breast cancer patients in the BIG 1GÇô98 trial. BMC Med. Genom. 2, 40–40 (2009).
doi: 10.1186/1755-8794-2-40
Metzger-Filho, O. et al. Genomic grade index (GGI): feasibility in routine practice and impact on treatment decisions in early breast cancer. PLoS ONE 8, e66848 (2013).
pubmed: 23990869
pmcid: 3747186
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066848
Huang, C. C. et al. Concurrent gene signatures for han chinese breast cancers. PLoS ONE 8, e76421 (2013).
pubmed: 24098497
pmcid: 3789693
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0076421
Rhodes, A., Jasani, B., Balaton, A. & Miller, K. Immunohistochemical demonstration of oestrogen and progesterone receptors: correlation of standards achieved on in house tumours with that achieved on external quality assessment material in over 150 laboratories from 26 countries. J. Clin. Pathol. 53, 292–301 (2000).
pubmed: 10823126
pmcid: 1731173
doi: 10.1136/jcp.53.4.292
Wolff, A. C. et al. American society of clinical oncology/college of american pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 25, 118–145 (2006).
pubmed: 17159189
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.09.2775
Sparano, J. A. & Muss, H. Learning from big data: Are we undertreating older women with high-risk breast cancer? NPJ Breast Cancer 2, 16019 (2016).
pubmed: 28721380
pmcid: 5515332
doi: 10.1038/npjbcancer.2016.19
Harris, L. N. et al. Use of biomarkers to guide decisions on adjuvant systemic therapy for women with early-stage invasive breast cancer: American society of clinical oncology clinical practice guideline. J. Clin. Oncol. 34, 1134–1150 (2016).
pubmed: 26858339
pmcid: 4933134
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.65.2289
Singer, C. F. et al. Pathological complete response to neoadjuvant trastuzumab is dependent on HER2/CEP17 Ratio in HER2-amplified early breast cancer. Clin. Cancer. Res. 23, 3676–3683 (2017).
pubmed: 28143867
doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-2373
Harbeck, N. & Gnant, M. Breast cancer. Lancet 389, 1134–1150 (2016).
pubmed: 27865536
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31891-8
Wirapati, P. et al. Meta-analysis of gene expression profiles in breast cancer: toward a unified understanding of breast cancer subtyping and prognosis signatures. Breast Cancer Res. 10, R65 (2008).
pubmed: 18662380
pmcid: 2575538
doi: 10.1186/bcr2124
Hudis, C. A. et al. Proposal for standardized definitions for efficacy end points in adjuvant breast cancer trials: the STEEP system. J. Clin. Oncol. 25, 2127–2132 (2007).
pubmed: 17513820
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.10.3523
Regan, M. M. et al. Re-evaluating adjuvant breast cancer trials: assessing hormone receptor status by immunohistochemical versus extraction assays. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 98, 1571–1581 (2006).
pubmed: 17077359
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djj415
Kaufmann, M., Pusztai, L. & Members, B. E. P. Use of standard markers and incorporation of molecular markers into breast cancer therapy: consensus recommendations from an international expert panel. Cancer 117, 1575–1582 (2011).
pubmed: 21472705
doi: 10.1002/cncr.25660
Bartlett, J. M. et al. A UK NEQAS ISH multicenter ring study using the Ventana HER2 dual-color ISH assay. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 135, 157–162 (2011).
pubmed: 21173138
doi: 10.1309/AJCPVPRKK1ENEDGQ
Lee, M., Lee, C. S. & Tan, P. H. Hormone receptor expression in breast cancer: postanalytical issues. J. Clin. Pathol. 66, 478–484 (2013).
pubmed: 23526546
doi: 10.1136/jclinpath-2012-201148
Hammond, M. E., Hayes, D. F., Wolff, A. C., Mangu, P. B. & Temin, S. American society of clinical oncology/college of American pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. J. Oncol. Pract. 6, 195–197 (2010).
pubmed: 21037871
pmcid: 2900870
doi: 10.1200/JOP.777003
Wells, C. A. et al. Consistency of staining and reporting of oestrogen receptor immunocytochemistry within the European Union: an inter-laboratory study. Virchows Arch. 445, 119–128 (2004).
pubmed: 15221370
doi: 10.1007/s00428-004-1063-8
Laas, E. et al. Low concordance between gene expression signatures in ER positive HER2 negative breast carcinoma could impair their clinical application. PLoS ONE 11, e0148957 (2016).
pubmed: 26895349
pmcid: 4760978
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148957
Rakha, E. A. et al. Updated UK Recommendations for HER2 assessment in breast cancer. J. Clin. Pathol. 68, 93–99 (2015).
pubmed: 25488926
doi: 10.1136/jclinpath-2014-202571
Allred, D. C. et al. NCCN task force report: estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor testing in breast cancer by immunohistochemistry. J. Natl. Compr. Canc. Netw 7(Suppl 6), S1–S21 (2009).
pubmed: 19755043
doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2009.0079
Li, Q. et al. Minimising immunohistochemical false negative ER classification using a complementary 23 gene expression signature of ER status. PLoS ONE 5, e15031 (2010).
pubmed: 21152022
pmcid: 2995741
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0015031
Owzar, K., Barry, W. T., Jung, S. H., Sohn, I. & George, S. L. Statistical challenges in pre-processing in microarray experiments in cancer. Clin. Cancer. Res. 14, 5959–5966 (2008).
pubmed: 18829474
pmcid: 3529914
doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-4532
Wu, Z. A review of statistical methods for preprocessing oligonucleotide microarrays. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 18, 533–541 (2009).
pubmed: 20048383
pmcid: 3152825
doi: 10.1177/0962280209351924
Wu, Z. & Irizarry, R. A. Preprocessing of oligonucleotide array data. Nat. Biotechnol. 22, 656–658 (2004).
pubmed: 15175677
doi: 10.1038/nbt0604-656b
Wu, Z., Irizarry, R. A., Gentleman, R., Martinez-Murillo, F. & Spencer, F. A model-based background adjustment for oligonucleotide expression arrays. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 99, 909–917 (2004).
doi: 10.1198/016214504000000683
Zhang, B. & Horvath, S. A general framework for weighted gene co-expression network analysis. Stat. Appl. Genet. Mol. Biol. 4, Article 17 (2005).
Ritchie, M. E. et al. limma powers differential expression analyses for RNA-sequencing and microarray studies. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, e47 (2015).
pubmed: 25605792
pmcid: 4402510
doi: 10.1093/nar/gkv007
Wu, Z. & Irizarry, R. A. A statistical framework for the analysis of microarray probe-level data. Ann. Appl. Stat. 1, 333–357 (2007).
doi: 10.1214/07-AOAS116
Bolstad, B. M., Irizarry, R. A., Astrand, M. & Speed, T. P. A comparison of normalization methods for high density oligonucleotide array data based on variance and bias. Bioinformatics 19, 185–193 (2003).
pubmed: 12538238
doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/19.2.185
Chen, X. et al. TNBCtype: a subtyping tool for triple-negative breast cancer. Cancer Inform. 11, 147–156 (2012).
pubmed: 22872785
pmcid: 3412597
doi: 10.4137/CIN.S9983
Gong, Y. et al. Determination of oestrogen-receptor status and ERBB2 status of breast carcinoma: a gene-expression profiling study. Lancet Oncol. 8, 203–211 (2007).
pubmed: 17329190
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(07)70042-6
Bergqvist, J. et al. Quantitative real-time PCR analysis and microarray-based RNA expression of HER2 in relation to outcome. Ann. Oncol. 18, 845–850 (2007).
pubmed: 17351254
doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdm059
Lopez, F. J., Cuadros, M., Cano, C., Concha, A. & Blanco, A. Biomedical application of fuzzy association rules for identifying breast cancer biomarkers. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 50, 981–990 (2012).
pubmed: 22622817
doi: 10.1007/s11517-012-0914-8
Kenn, M. et al. Co-expressed genes enhance precision of receptor status identification in breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 172, 313–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-4920-x (2018).
doi: 10.1007/s10549-018-4920-x
pubmed: 30117066
pmcid: 6208909
Kenn, M. et al. Gene expression information improves reliability of receptor status in breast cancer patients. Oncotarget 8, 77341–77359 (2017).
pubmed: 29100391
pmcid: 5652334
doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.20474
Gordon, J. & Shortliffe, E. H. in Rule-Based Expert Systems: The MYCIN Experiments of the Stanford Heuristic Programming Project (eds. Buchanan, B. G. & Shortliffe, E. H) Chap. 13, 832–838 (Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1984).
Högger, A. Dempster Shafer Sensor Fusion for Autonomously Driving Vehicles : Association Free Tracking of Dynamic Objects, diplomar thesis, KTH Royal Institut of Technology School of Electrical Engineering, Sweden, http://kth.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:931627/FULLTEXT01.pdf (2016).
Feng, R., Zhang, G. & Cheng, B. An on-board system for detecting driver drowsiness based on multi-sensor data fusion using Dempster-Shafer theory, in 2009 International Conference on Networking, Sensing and Control, pp. 897–902 (2009).
Jugade, S. C. & Victorino, A. C. Grid based estimation of decision uncertainty of autonomous driving systems using belief function theory. IFAC-PapersOnLine 51, 261–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.07.043 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.07.043
Lu, C., Wang, S. & Wang, X. A multi-source information fusion fault diagnosis for aviation hydraulic pump based on the new evidence similarity distance. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 71, 392–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2017.09.040 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.ast.2017.09.040
Yang, J., Huang, H.-Z., He, L.-P., Zhu, S.-P. & Wen, D. Risk evaluation in failure mode and effects analysis of aircraft turbine rotor blades using Dempster-Shafer evidence theory under uncertainty. Eng. Failure Anal. 18, 2084–2092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2011.06.014 (2011).
doi: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2011.06.014
Fontani, M., Bianchi, T., De Rosa, A., Piva, A. & Barni, M. A Framework for decision fusion in image forensics based on dempster-shafer theory of evidence. IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. 8, 593–607. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIFS.2013.2248727 (2013).
doi: 10.1109/TIFS.2013.2248727
Chandana, S., Leung, H. & Trpkov, K. Staging of prostate cancer using automatic feature selection, sampling and Dempster-Shafer fusion. Cancer Inform. 7, 57–73 (2009).
pubmed: 19352459
pmcid: 2664701
doi: 10.4137/CIN.S819
Raza, M., Gondal, I., Green, D. & Coppel, R. L. Fusion of FNA-cytology and gene-expression data using Dempster-Shafer Theory of evidence to predict breast cancer tumors. Bioinformation 1, 170–175 (2006).
pubmed: 17597882
pmcid: 1891684
doi: 10.6026/97320630001170
van Vliet, M. H. et al. Pooling breast cancer datasets has a synergetic effect on classification performance and improves signature stability. BMC Genom. 9, 375 (2008).
doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-9-375
Rung, J. & Brazma, A. Reuse of public genome-wide gene expression data. Nat. Rev. Genet. 14, 89–99 (2013).
pubmed: 23269463
doi: 10.1038/nrg3394
Edgar, R. & Barrett, T. NCBI GEO standards and services for microarray data. Nat. Biotechnol. 24, 1471–1472 (2006).
pubmed: 17160034
pmcid: 2270403
doi: 10.1038/nbt1206-1471
Barrett, T. & Edgar, R. Mining microarray data at NCBI’s gene expression omnibus (GEO). Methods Mol. Biol 338, 175–190 (2006).
pubmed: 16888359
pmcid: 1619899
Irizarry, R. A. et al. Summaries of Affymetrix GeneChip probe level data. Nucleic Acids Res. 31, e15 (2003).
pubmed: 12582260
pmcid: 150247
doi: 10.1093/nar/gng015
Gautier, L., Cope, L., Bolstad, B. M. & Irizarry, R. A. affy-analysis of Affymetrix GeneChip data at the probe level. Bioinformatics 20, 307–315 (2004).
pubmed: 14960456
doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btg405
Stafford, P. Methods in Microarray Normalization (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2008).
doi: 10.1201/9781420052794
McCall, M. N., Jaffee, H. A. & Irizarry, R. A. fRMA ST: frozen robust multiarray analysis for Affymetrix Exon and Gene ST arrays. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) 28, 3153–3154. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bts588 (2012).
doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts588
Bolstad, B. Background and Normalization: Investigating the effects of preprocessing on gene expression estimates, http://bmbolstad.com/stuff/BAUGM.pdf (2017).
Kenn, M. et al. Microarray normalization revisited for reproducible breast cancer biomarkers. Biomed. Res. Int. 2020, 1363827. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/1363827 (2020).
doi: 10.1155/2020/1363827
pubmed: 32832541
pmcid: 7428878
Irizarry, R. A. et al. Exploration, normalization, and summaries of high density oligonucleotide array probe level data. Biostatistics 4, 249–264 (2003).
pubmed: 12925520
doi: 10.1093/biostatistics/4.2.249
Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R. & Friedman, J. The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction 2nd edn. (Springer, Berlin, 2009).
doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-84858-7
Gendoo, D. M. et al. Genefu: an R/Bioconductor package for computation of gene expression-based signatures in breast cancer. Bioinformatics 32, 1097–1099 (2016).
pubmed: 26607490
doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv693
McCullagh, P. & Nelder, J. A. in Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability Volume 37 Generalized Linear Models (Chapman and Hall/CRC, London, 1989).
Shoyaib, M., Abdullah-Al-Wadud, M. & Chae, O. A skin detection approach based on the Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 53, 636–659 (2012).
doi: 10.1016/j.ijar.2012.01.003
Yang, J. B. & Xu, D. L. Evidential reasoning rule for evidence combination. Artif. Intell. 205, 1–29 (2013).
doi: 10.1016/j.artint.2013.09.003