4.7 Article

Pathway-based gene signatures predicting clinical outcome of lung adenocarcinoma

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 5, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep10979

关键词

-

资金

  1. Institute of Statistical Science of the Academia Sinica [AS-100-TP-AB1, AS-100-TP-AB2, NSC 98-3112-B-001-034, NSC 99-2314-B-001-003-MY3, NSC 100-2325-B-001-027, NSC 101-2325-B-002-071, NSC 102-2325-B-002-078, NSC 101-2319-B-002-002, NSC 102-2319-B-002 -002, NSC 102-2911-I-002-303, NSC 101-2911-I-002-303, MOST 103-2923-B-002-003, DOH101-TD-B-111-001, 102R7557]
  2. NSC [102-2923-B-002-004, 103-2923-B-002-003]
  3. Taiwan Biosignature Project of Lung Cancer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lung adenocarcinoma is often diagnosed at an advanced stage with poor prognosis. Patients with different clinical outcomes may have similar clinico-pathological characteristics. The results of previous studies for biomarkers for lung adenocarcinoma have generally been inconsistent and limited in clinical application. In this study, we used inverse-variance weighting to combine the hazard ratios for the four datasets and performed pathway analysis to identify prognosis-associated gene signatures. A total of 2,418 genes were found to be significantly associated with overall survival. Of these, a 21-gene signature in the HMGB1/RAGE signalling pathway and a 31-gene signature in the clathrin-coated vesicle cycle pathway were significantly associated with prognosis of lung adenocarcinoma across all four datasets (all p-values < 0.05, log-rank test). We combined the scores for the three pathways to derive a combined pathway-based risk (CPBR) score. Three pathway-based signatures and CPBR score also had more predictive power than single genes. Finally, the CPBR score was validated in two independent cohorts (GSE14814 and GSE13213 in the GEO database) and had significant adjusted hazard ratios 2.72 (p-value < 0.0001) and 1.71 (p-value < 0.0001), respectively. These results could provide a more complete picture of the lung cancer pathogenesis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据