4.7 Article

Modeling risk stratification in human cancer

Journal

BIOINFORMATICS
Volume 29, Issue 9, Pages 1149-1157

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt124

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer, Paris, France
  2. Institut National du Cancer, Paris, France
  3. Hopp-Foundation, Germany
  4. University of Heidelberg, Germany
  5. National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg, Germany
  6. Deutsche Forschungs-gemeinschaft, Bonn, Germany [TRR79]
  7. Deutsche Krebshilfe, Bonn, Germany

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Motivation: Despite huge prognostic promises, gene expression-based survival assessment is rarely used in clinical routine. Main reasons include difficulties in performing and reporting analyses and restriction in most methods to one high-risk group with the vast majority of patients being unassessed. The present study aims at limiting these difficulties by (i) mathematically defining the number of risk groups without any a priori assumption; (ii) computing the risk of an independent cohort by considering each patient as a new patient incorporated to the validation cohort and (iii) providing an open-access Web site to freely compute risk for every new patient. Results: Using the gene expression profiles of 551 patients with multiple myeloma, 602 with breast-cancer and 460 with glioma, we developed a model combining running log-rank tests under controlled chi-square conditions and multiple testing corrections to build a risk score and a classification algorithm using simultaneous global and between-group log-rank chi-square maximization. For each cancer entity, we provide a statistically significant three-group risk prediction model, which is corroborated with publicly available validation cohorts. Conclusion: In constraining between-group significances, the risk score compares favorably with previous risk classifications.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available