Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 147, Issue 2, pp 353–370 | Cite as

Refinement of breast cancer risk prediction with concordant leading edge subsets from prognostic gene signatures

  • Chi-Cheng Huang
  • Shih-Hsin Tu
  • Heng-Hui Lien
  • Ching-Shui Huang
  • Chi-Jung Huang
  • Liang-Chuan Lai
  • Mon-Hsun Tsai
  • Eric Y. Chuang
Clinical Trial

Abstract

Several prognostic signatures have been identified for breast cancer. However, these signatures vary extensively in their gene compositions, and the poor concordance of the risk groups defined by the prognostic signatures hinders their clinical applicability. Breast cancer risk prediction was refined with a novel approach to finding concordant genes from leading edge analysis of prognostic signatures. Each signature was split into two gene sets, which contained either up-regulated or down-regulated genes, and leading edge analysis was performed within each array study for all up-/down-regulated gene sets of the same signature from all training datasets. Consensus of leading edge subsets among all training microarrays was used to synthesize a predictive model, which was then tested in independent studies by partial least squares regression. Only a small portion of six prognostic signatures (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Genomic Grade Index, Recurrence Score, and Hu306 and PAM50 of intrinsic subtypes) was significantly enriched in the leading edge analysis in five training datasets (n = 2,380), and that the concordant leading edge subsets (43 genes) could identify the core signature genes that account for the enrichment signals providing prognostic power across all assayed samples. The proposed concordant leading edge algorithm was able to discriminate high-risk from low-risk patients in terms of relapse-free or distant metastasis-free survival in all training samples (hazard ratios: 1.84–2.20) and in three out of four independent studies (hazard ratios: 3.91–8.31). In some studies, the concordant leading edge subset remained a significant prognostic factor independent of clinical ER, HER2, and lymph node status. The present study provides a statistical framework for identifying core consensus across microarray studies with leading edge analysis, and a breast cancer risk predictive model was established.

Keywords

Breast cancer Concordant genes Gene expression profiles Leading edge analysis Microarray 

Supplementary material

10549_2014_3104_MOESM1_ESM.tif (1.2 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (TIFF 1262 kb)
10549_2014_3104_MOESM2_ESM.tif (1.5 mb)
Supplementary material 2 (TIFF 1549 kb)
10549_2014_3104_MOESM3_ESM.tif (1.5 mb)
Supplementary material 3 (TIFF 1531 kb)
10549_2014_3104_MOESM4_ESM.tif (1.5 mb)
Supplementary material 4 (TIFF 1555 kb)
10549_2014_3104_MOESM5_ESM.tif (1.5 mb)
Supplementary material 5 (TIFF 1536 kb)
10549_2014_3104_MOESM6_ESM.tif (1.5 mb)
Supplementary material 6 (TIFF 1545 kb)
10549_2014_3104_MOESM7_ESM.xlsx (17 kb)
Supplementary material 7 (XLSX 17 kb)
10549_2014_3104_MOESM8_ESM.xlsx (66 kb)
Supplementary material 8 (XLSX 65 kb)
10549_2014_3104_MOESM9_ESM.xlsx (29 kb)
Supplementary material 9 (XLSX 28 kb)
10549_2014_3104_MOESM10_ESM.xlsx (19 kb)
Supplementary material 10 (XLSX 18 kb)
10549_2014_3104_MOESM11_ESM.xlsx (16 kb)
Supplementary material 11 (XLSX 16 kb)
10549_2014_3104_MOESM12_ESM.docx (29 kb)
Supplementary material 12 (DOCX 29 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Arranz EE, Vara JÁ, Gámez-Pozo A, Zamora P (2012) Gene signatures in breast cancer: current and future uses. Transl Oncol 5:398–403PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Prat A, Perou CM (2011) Deconstructing the molecular portraits of breast cancer. Mol Oncol 5:5–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Peppercorn J, Perou CM, Carey LA (2008) Molecular subtypes in breast cancer evaluation and management: divide and conquer. Cancer Invest 26:1–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    van de Vijver MJ, He YD, van’t Veer LJ et al (2002) A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347:1999–2009PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    van’t Veer LJ, Dai H, van de Vijver MJ et al (2002) Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature 415:530–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wang Y, Klijn JG, Zhang Y et al (2005) Gene-expression profiles to predict distant metastasis of lymph-node-negative primary breast cancer. Lancet 365:671–679PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sotiriou C, Wirapati P, Loi S et al (2006) Gene expression profiling in breast cancer: understanding the molecular basis of histologic grade to improve prognosis. J Natl Cancer Inst 98:262–272PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Naoi Y, Kishi K, Tanei T et al (2011) High genomic grade index associated with poor prognosis for lymph node-negative and estrogen receptor-positive breast cancers and with good response to chemotherapy. Cancer 117:472–479PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Paik S, Shak S, Tang G et al (2004) A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 351:2817–2826PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dowsett M, Sestak I, Lopez-Knowles E et al (2013) Comparison of PAM50 risk of recurrence score with oncotype DX and IHC4 for predicting risk of distant recurrence after endocrine therapy. J Clin Oncol 31:2783–2790PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hu Z, Fan C, Oh DS et al (2006) The molecular portraits of breast tumors are conserved across microarray platforms. BMC Genom 7:96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Parker JS, Mullins M, Cheang MC et al (2008) Supervised risk predictor of breast cancer based on intrinsic subtypes. J Clin Oncol 27:1160–1167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haibe-Kains B, Desmedt C, Loi S, Culhane AC, Bontempi G, Quackenbush J, Sotiriou C (2012) A three-gene model to robustly identify breast cancer molecular subtypes. J Nat Cancer Inst 104:311–325PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lusa L, McShane LM, Reid JF (2007) Challenges in projecting clustering results across gene expression-profiling datasets. J Nat Cancer Inst 99:1715–1723PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dupuy A, Simon RM (2007) Critical review of published microarray studies for cancer outcome and guidelines on statistical analysis and reporting. J Nat Cancer Inst 99:147–157PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Perou CM, Sørlie T, Eisen MB et al (2000) Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 406:747–752PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sørlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R et al (2001) Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 98:10869–10874PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sørlie T, Tibshirani R, Parker J et al (2003) Repeated observation of breast tumor subtypes in independent gene expression data sets. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 100:8418–8423PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Györffy B, Schäfer R (2009) Meta-analysis of gene expression profiles related to relapse-free survival in 1,079 breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 118:433–441PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kao KJ, Chang KM, Hsu HC, Huang AT (2011) Correlation of microarray-based breast cancer molecular subtypes and clinical outcomes: implications for treatment optimization. BMC Cancer 11:143PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schmidt M, Böhm D, von Törne C (2008) The humoral immune system has a key prognostic impact in node-negative breast cancer. Cancer Res 68:5405–5413PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sabatier R, Finetti P, Cervera N (2011) A gene expression signature identifies two prognostic subgroups of basal breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 126:407–420PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hatzis C, Pusztai L, Valero V et al (2011) A genomic predictor of response and survival following taxane-anthracycline chemotherapy for invasive breast cancer. JAMA 350:1873–1881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Loi S, Haibe-Kains B, Desmedt C et al (2008) Predicting prognosis using molecular profiling in estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer treated with tamoxifen. BMC Genom 9:239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Desmedt C, Giobbie-Hurder A, Neven P et al (2009) The gene expression grade index: a potential predictor of relapse for endocrine-treated breast cancer patients in the BIG 1–98 trial. BMC Med Genomics 2:40PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Minn AJ, Gupta GP, Siegel PM et al (2005) Genes that mediate breast cancer metastasis to lung. Nature 436:518–524PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhang Y, Sieuwerts AM, McGreevy M et al (2009) The 76-gene signature defines high-risk patients that benefit from adjuvant tamoxifen therapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 116:303–309PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Subramanian A, Tamayo P, Mootha VK et al (2005) Gene set enrichment analysis: a knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 102:15545–15550PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Huang CC, Tu SH, Huang CS, Lien HH, Lai LC, Chuang EY (2013) Multiclass prediction with partial least square regression for gene expression data: applications in breast cancer intrinsic taxonomy. Biomed Res Int 2013:248648PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Huang CC, Tu SH, Lien HH et al (2014) Estrogen receptor status prediction by gene component regression: a comparative study. IJDMB 9:149–171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sotiriou C, Pusztai L et al (2009) Gene-expression signatures in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 360:790–800PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gatza ML, Lucas JE, Barry WT et al (2010) A pathway-based classification of human breast cancer. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 107:6994–6999PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fan C, Oh DS, Wessels L et al (2006) Concordance among gene-expression-based predictors for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 355:560–569PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chang HY, Nuyten DS, Sneddon JB et al (2005) Robustness, scalability, and integration of a wound-response gene expression signature in predicting breast cancer survival. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 102:3738–3743PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ma XJ, Wang Z, Ryan PD et al (2004) A two-gene expression ratio predicts clinical outcome in breast cancer patients treated with tamoxifen. Cancer Cell 5:607–616PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Weigelt B, Mackay A, A’hern R et al (2010) Breast cancer molecular profiling with single sample predictors: a retrospective analysis. Lancet Oncol 11:339–349PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wirapati P, Sotiriou C, Kunkel S et al (2008) Meta-analysis of gene expression profiles in breast cancer: toward a unified understanding of breast cancer subtyping and prognosis signatures. Breast Cancer Res 10:R65PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Johnson WE, Li C, Rabinovic A (2007) Adjusting batch effects in microarray expression data using empirical Bayes methods. Biostatistics 8:118–127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Alter O, Brown PO, Botstein D (2000) Singular value decomposition for genome-wide expression data processing and modeling. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 97:10101–10106PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Boidot R, Vegran F, Jacob D et al (2008) The expression of BIRC5 is correlated with loss of specific chromosomal regions in breast carcinomas. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 47:299–308PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Thorner AR, Hoadley KA, Parker JS, Winkel S, Millikan RC, Perou CM (2009) In vitro and in vivo analysis of B-Myb in basal-like breast cancer. Oncogene 28:742–751PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ding K, Li W, Zou Z, Zou X, Wang C (2014) CCNB1 is a prognostic biomarker for ER+ breast cancer. Med Hypotheses. doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2014.06.013 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Li Y, Chen YL, Xie YT et al (2013) Association study of germline variants in CCNB1 and CDK1 with breast cancer susceptibility, progression, and survival among Chinese Han women. PLoS ONE 8:e84489PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Pandey JP, Kistner-Griffin E, Namboodiri AM, Iwasaki M, Kasuga Y, Hamada GS, Tsugane S (2014) Higher levels of antibodies to the tumor-associated antigen cyclin B1 in cancer-free individuals than in patients with breast cancer. Clin Exp Immunol. doi:10.1111/cei.12385 Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sieuwerts AM, Look MP, Meijer-van Gelder ME et al (2006) Which cyclin E prevails as prognostic marker for breast cancer? Results from a retrospective study involving 635 lymph node-negative breast cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res 12:3319–3328PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    O’Brien SL, Fagan A, Fox EJ et al (2007) CENP-F expression is associated with poor prognosis and chromosomal instability in patients with primary breast cancer. Int J Cancer 120:1434–1443PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Pickard MR, Green AR, Ellis IO, Caldas C, Hedge VL, Mourtada-Maarabouni M, Williams GT (2009) Dysregulated expression of Fau and MELK is associated with poor prognosis in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 11:R60PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lin ML, Park JH, Nishidate T, Nakamura Y, Katagiri T (2007) Involvement of maternal embryonic leucine zipper kinase (MELK) in mammary carcinogenesis through interaction with Bcl-G, a pro-apoptotic member of the Bcl-2 family. Breast Cancer Res 9:R17PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Dawson SJ, Makretsov N, Blows FM et al (2010) BCL2 in breast cancer: a favourable prognostic marker across molecular subtypes and independent of adjuvant therapy received. Br J Cancer 103:668–675PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Muthuswami M, Ramesh V, Banerjee S et al (2013) Breast tumors with elevated expression of 1q candidate genes confer poor clinical outcome and sensitivity to Ras/PI3K inhibition. PLoS ONE 8:e77553PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Shimo A, Tanikawa C, Nishidate T et al (2008) Involvement of kinesin family member 2C/mitotic centromere-associated kinesin overexpression in mammary carcinogenesis. Cancer Sci 99:62–70PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Maire V, Némati F, Richardson M et al (2013) Polo-like kinase 1: a potential therapeutic option in combination with conventional chemotherapy for the management of patients with triple-negative breast cancer. Cancer Res 73:813–823PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chi-Cheng Huang
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Shih-Hsin Tu
    • 4
    • 5
  • Heng-Hui Lien
    • 3
    • 5
  • Ching-Shui Huang
    • 4
    • 5
  • Chi-Jung Huang
    • 3
    • 6
  • Liang-Chuan Lai
    • 7
  • Mon-Hsun Tsai
    • 8
  • Eric Y. Chuang
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate Institute of Biomedical Electronics and Bioinformatics, Department of Electrical EngineeringNational Taiwan UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  2. 2.Cathay General Hospital SijhihNew TaipeiTaiwan
  3. 3.School of MedicineFu-Jen Catholic UniversityNew TaipeiTaiwan
  4. 4.School of MedicineTaipei Medical UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  5. 5.Department of SurgeryCathay General HospitalTaipeiTaiwan
  6. 6.Cathay Medical Research InstituteNew TaipeiTaiwan
  7. 7.Graduate Institute of PhysiologyNational Taiwan UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  8. 8.Graduate Institute of BiotechnologyNational Taiwan UniversityTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations