4.7 Article

A simple and reproducible breast cancer prognostic test

Journal

BMC GENOMICS
Volume 14, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2164-14-336

Keywords

Reproducible research; Gene expression analysis; Biomarkers; Top scoring pair; Prediction; Genomics; Personalized medicine; Breast cancer; MammaPrint

Funding

  1. Johns Hopkins Breast Cancer Program through Safeway Research Foundation
  2. National Institute of Health [P30 CA006973, R01 GM08308]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: A small number of prognostic and predictive tests based on gene expression are currently offered as reference laboratory tests. In contrast to such success stories, a number of flaws and errors have recently been identified in other genomic-based predictors and the success rate for developing clinically useful genomic signatures is low. These errors have led to widespread concerns about the protocols for conducting and reporting of computational research. As a result, a need has emerged for a template for reproducible development of genomic signatures that incorporates full transparency, data sharing and statistical robustness. Results: Here we present the first fully reproducible analysis of the data used to train and test MammaPrint, an FDA-cleared prognostic test for breast cancer based on a 70-gene expression signature. We provide all the software and documentation necessary for researchers to build and evaluate genomic classifiers based on these data. As an example of the utility of this reproducible research resource, we develop a simple prognostic classifier that uses only 16 genes from the MammaPrint signature and is equally accurate in predicting 5-year disease free survival. Conclusions: Our study provides a prototypic example for reproducible development of computational algorithms for learning prognostic biomarkers in the era of personalized medicine.

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