Extent, impact, and mitigation of batch effects in tumor biomarker studies using tissue microarrays.

R package batch effect batchtma cancer biology human measurement error tissue microarray

Journal

eLife
ISSN: 2050-084X
Titre abrégé: Elife
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101579614

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
23 12 2021
Historique:
received: 14 06 2021
accepted: 22 12 2021
pubmed: 24 12 2021
medline: 25 2 2022
entrez: 23 12 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Tissue microarrays (TMAs) have been used in thousands of cancer biomarker studies. To what extent batch effects, measurement error in biomarker levels between slides, affects TMA-based studies has not been assessed systematically. We evaluated 20 protein biomarkers on 14 TMAs with prospectively collected tumor tissue from 1448 primary prostate cancers. In half of the biomarkers, more than 10% of biomarker variance was attributable to between-TMA differences (range, 1-48%). We implemented different methods to mitigate batch effects (R package To understand cancer, researchers need to know which molecules tumor cells use. These so-called ‘biomarkers’ tag cancer cells as being different from healthy cells, and can be used to predict how aggressive a tumor may be, or how well it might respond to treatment. A popular technique for assessing biomarkers across multiple tumors is to use tissue microarrays. This involves taking samples from different tumors and embedding them in a block of wax, which is then cut into micro-thin slices and stained with reagents that can detect specific biomarkers, such as proteins. Each block contains hundreds of samples, which all experience the same conditions. So, any patterns detected in the staining are likely to represent real variations in the biomarkers present. Many cancer studies, however, often compare samples from multiple tissue microarrays, which may increase the risk of technical artifacts: for example, staining may look stronger in one batch of tissue samples than another, even though the amount of biomarker present in these different arrays is roughly the same. These ‘batch effects’ could potentially bias the results of the experiment and lead to the identification of misleading patterns. To evaluate how batch effects impact tissue microarray studies, Stopsack et al. examined 14 wax blocks which contained tumor samples from 1,448 men with prostate cancer. This revealed that for some biomarkers, but not others, there were noticeable differences between tissue microarrays that were clearly the result of batch effects. Stopsack et al. then tested six different ways of fixing these discrepancies using statistical methods. All six approaches were successful, even if the arrays included tumors with different characteristics, such as tumors that had been diagnosed more or less recently. This work highlights the importance of considering batch effects when using tissue microarrays to study cancer. Stopsack et al. have used their statistical approaches to develop freely available software which can reduce the biases that sometimes arise from these technical artifacts. This could help researchers avoid misleading patterns in their data and make it easier to detect real variations in the biomarkers present between tumor samples.

Autres résumés

Type: plain-language-summary (eng)
To understand cancer, researchers need to know which molecules tumor cells use. These so-called ‘biomarkers’ tag cancer cells as being different from healthy cells, and can be used to predict how aggressive a tumor may be, or how well it might respond to treatment. A popular technique for assessing biomarkers across multiple tumors is to use tissue microarrays. This involves taking samples from different tumors and embedding them in a block of wax, which is then cut into micro-thin slices and stained with reagents that can detect specific biomarkers, such as proteins. Each block contains hundreds of samples, which all experience the same conditions. So, any patterns detected in the staining are likely to represent real variations in the biomarkers present. Many cancer studies, however, often compare samples from multiple tissue microarrays, which may increase the risk of technical artifacts: for example, staining may look stronger in one batch of tissue samples than another, even though the amount of biomarker present in these different arrays is roughly the same. These ‘batch effects’ could potentially bias the results of the experiment and lead to the identification of misleading patterns. To evaluate how batch effects impact tissue microarray studies, Stopsack et al. examined 14 wax blocks which contained tumor samples from 1,448 men with prostate cancer. This revealed that for some biomarkers, but not others, there were noticeable differences between tissue microarrays that were clearly the result of batch effects. Stopsack et al. then tested six different ways of fixing these discrepancies using statistical methods. All six approaches were successful, even if the arrays included tumors with different characteristics, such as tumors that had been diagnosed more or less recently. This work highlights the importance of considering batch effects when using tissue microarrays to study cancer. Stopsack et al. have used their statistical approaches to develop freely available software which can reduce the biases that sometimes arise from these technical artifacts. This could help researchers avoid misleading patterns in their data and make it easier to detect real variations in the biomarkers present between tumor samples.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34939926
doi: 10.7554/eLife.71265
pii: 71265
pmc: PMC8849344
doi:
pii:

Substances chimiques

Biomarkers, Tumor 0

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Subventions

Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P50 CA090381
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R37 CA227190
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : U01 CA167552
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R35 CA212799
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA006516
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA008748
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R01 CA131945
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R03 CA212799
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P50 CA211024
Pays : United States

Informations de copyright

© 2021, Stopsack et al.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

KS, ST, MW, TG, JV, KP, SF, MF, ML, TL, LM No competing interests declared, PK reports the following disclosures for the last 24-month period: he has investment interest in Convergent Therapeutics Inc, Cogent Biosciences, Context Therapeutics LLC, DRGT, Mirati, Placon, PrognomIQ, SnyDevRx and XLink, he is a company board member for Context Therapeutics LLC and Convergent Therapeutics, he is a company founder for XLink and Convergent Therapeutics, and is/was a consultant/scientific advisory board member for Anji, Candel, DRGT, Immunis, AI (previously OncoCellMDX), Janssen, Progenity, PrognomIQ, Seer Biosciences, SynDevRX, Tarveda Therapeutics, and Veru, and serves on data safety monitoring boards for Genentech/Roche and Merck. He reports spousal association with Bayer, GP reports the following disclosures for the last 24-month period: he had investment interest in CRA Health; he is a co-founder and company board member of Phaeno Biotechnology; he is a consultant / scientific advisory board member for Konica-Minolta, Delfi Diagnostics and Foundation Medicine; he serves on a data safety monitoring board for Geisinger. None of these activities are related to the content of this article

Références

Am J Epidemiol. 2008 Mar 15;167(6):653-66
pubmed: 18230679
Int J Epidemiol. 2020 Jun 1;49(3):731-737
pubmed: 32737506
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2018 Feb;27(2):201-207
pubmed: 29141848
Stat Med. 2013 Oct 15;32(23):4118-34
pubmed: 23613458
Bioinformatics. 2016 Dec 15;32(24):3836-3838
pubmed: 27540268
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1995 Sep;4(6):649-54
pubmed: 8547832
Clin Cancer Res. 2014 Sep 15;20(18):4904-11
pubmed: 24687926
J Stat Softw. 2016 May 12;70:
pubmed: 29593450
Int J Epidemiol. 2020 Feb 1;49(1):338-347
pubmed: 31821469
Bioinformatics. 2012 Mar 15;28(6):882-3
pubmed: 22257669
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2013 Nov;22(11):1984-93
pubmed: 23983239
Clin Cancer Res. 2020 Nov 15;26(22):5903-5913
pubmed: 32913135
Biostatistics. 2007 Jan;8(1):118-27
pubmed: 16632515
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012 Sep;21(9):1497-509
pubmed: 22736790
Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2010 Nov;85(4):935-56
pubmed: 20569253
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009 Feb;18(2):595-600
pubmed: 19155438
Comput Stat Data Anal. 2014 Apr;72:219-226
pubmed: 24587587
IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2014 May;18(3):765-72
pubmed: 24808220
Carcinogenesis. 2015 Jun;36(6):639-47
pubmed: 25863129
Nat Med. 1998 Jul;4(7):844-7
pubmed: 9662379
Hum Mol Genet. 2001 Apr;10(7):657-62
pubmed: 11257096
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2016 Jun;101(6):2520-7
pubmed: 27115058
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Jun 10;29(17):2378-85
pubmed: 21537045
Nucleic Acids Res. 2015 Apr 20;43(7):e47
pubmed: 25605792
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Sep 1;28(25):3958-64
pubmed: 20679621
Am J Epidemiol. 2008 Sep 15;168(6):656-64
pubmed: 18682488
BMC Bioinformatics. 2018 Jul 13;19(1):262
pubmed: 30001694
Biostatistics. 2016 Jan;17(1):29-39
pubmed: 26272994
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Jul 20;27(21):3459-64
pubmed: 19433685
Cancer Causes Control. 2006 Sep;17(7):889-99
pubmed: 16841256
Clin Chem. 2019 Jan;65(1):189-198
pubmed: 30518666
Nature. 2011 Feb 10;470(7333):269-73
pubmed: 21289624
Bioinformatics. 2003 Jan 22;19(2):185-93
pubmed: 12538238
Lab Invest. 2008 Dec;88(12):1340-8
pubmed: 18838960
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2013 Dec;22(12):2354-63
pubmed: 24130224
Eur J Epidemiol. 2018 Apr;33(4):381-392
pubmed: 29264788
Nat Rev Genet. 2010 Oct;11(10):733-9
pubmed: 20838408

Auteurs

Konrad H Stopsack (KH)

Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, United States.
Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States.

Svitlana Tyekucheva (S)

Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, United States.
Department of Data Science, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, United States.

Molin Wang (M)

Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, United States.
Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, United States.
Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States.

Travis A Gerke (TA)

Department of Cancer Epidemiology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, United States.

J Bailey Vaselkiv (JB)

Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, United States.

Kathryn L Penney (KL)

Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, United States.
Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States.

Philip W Kantoff (PW)

Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, United States.

Stephen P Finn (SP)

Department of Pathology, St. James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.

Michelangelo Fiorentino (M)

Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, United States.
Pathology Unit, Addarii Institute, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy.

Massimo Loda (M)

Department of Pathology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, United States.

Tamara L Lotan (TL)

Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, United States.

Giovanni Parmigiani (G)

Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, United States.

Lorelei A Mucci (LA)

Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, United States.

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