Cargando…

No prognostic value added by vitamin D pathway SNPs to current prognostic system for melanoma survival

The prognostic improvement attributed to genetic markers over current prognostic system has not been well studied for melanoma. The goal of this study is to evaluate the added prognostic value of Vitamin D Pathway (VitD) SNPs to currently known clinical and demographic factors such as age, sex, Bres...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Luo, Li, Orlow, Irene, Kanetsky, Peter A., Thomas, Nancy E., Fang, Shenying, Lee, Jeffrey E., Berwick, Marianne, Lee, Ji-Hyun
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5360355/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28323902
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174234
_version_ 1782516583017480192
author Luo, Li
Orlow, Irene
Kanetsky, Peter A.
Thomas, Nancy E.
Fang, Shenying
Lee, Jeffrey E.
Berwick, Marianne
Lee, Ji-Hyun
author_facet Luo, Li
Orlow, Irene
Kanetsky, Peter A.
Thomas, Nancy E.
Fang, Shenying
Lee, Jeffrey E.
Berwick, Marianne
Lee, Ji-Hyun
author_sort Luo, Li
collection PubMed
description The prognostic improvement attributed to genetic markers over current prognostic system has not been well studied for melanoma. The goal of this study is to evaluate the added prognostic value of Vitamin D Pathway (VitD) SNPs to currently known clinical and demographic factors such as age, sex, Breslow thickness, mitosis and ulceration (CDF). We utilized two large independent well-characterized melanoma studies: the Genes, Environment, and Melanoma (GEM) and MD Anderson studies, and performed variable selection of VitD pathway SNPs and CDF using Random Survival Forest (RSF) method in addition to Cox proportional hazards models. The Harrell’s C-index was used to compare the performance of model predictability. The population-based GEM study enrolled 3,578 incident cases of cutaneous melanoma (CM), and the hospital-based MD Anderson study consisted of 1,804 CM patients. Including both VitD SNPs and CDF yielded C-index of 0.85, which provided slight but not significant improvement by CDF alone (C-index = 0.83) in the GEM study. Similar results were observed in the independent MD Anderson study (C-index = 0.84 and 0.83, respectively). The Cox model identified no significant associations after adjusting for multiplicity. Our results do not support clinically significant prognostic improvements attributable to VitD pathway SNPs over current prognostic system for melanoma survival.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5360355
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53603552017-04-06 No prognostic value added by vitamin D pathway SNPs to current prognostic system for melanoma survival Luo, Li Orlow, Irene Kanetsky, Peter A. Thomas, Nancy E. Fang, Shenying Lee, Jeffrey E. Berwick, Marianne Lee, Ji-Hyun PLoS One Research Article The prognostic improvement attributed to genetic markers over current prognostic system has not been well studied for melanoma. The goal of this study is to evaluate the added prognostic value of Vitamin D Pathway (VitD) SNPs to currently known clinical and demographic factors such as age, sex, Breslow thickness, mitosis and ulceration (CDF). We utilized two large independent well-characterized melanoma studies: the Genes, Environment, and Melanoma (GEM) and MD Anderson studies, and performed variable selection of VitD pathway SNPs and CDF using Random Survival Forest (RSF) method in addition to Cox proportional hazards models. The Harrell’s C-index was used to compare the performance of model predictability. The population-based GEM study enrolled 3,578 incident cases of cutaneous melanoma (CM), and the hospital-based MD Anderson study consisted of 1,804 CM patients. Including both VitD SNPs and CDF yielded C-index of 0.85, which provided slight but not significant improvement by CDF alone (C-index = 0.83) in the GEM study. Similar results were observed in the independent MD Anderson study (C-index = 0.84 and 0.83, respectively). The Cox model identified no significant associations after adjusting for multiplicity. Our results do not support clinically significant prognostic improvements attributable to VitD pathway SNPs over current prognostic system for melanoma survival. Public Library of Science 2017-03-21 /pmc/articles/PMC5360355/ /pubmed/28323902 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174234 Text en © 2017 Luo et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Luo, Li
Orlow, Irene
Kanetsky, Peter A.
Thomas, Nancy E.
Fang, Shenying
Lee, Jeffrey E.
Berwick, Marianne
Lee, Ji-Hyun
No prognostic value added by vitamin D pathway SNPs to current prognostic system for melanoma survival
title No prognostic value added by vitamin D pathway SNPs to current prognostic system for melanoma survival
title_full No prognostic value added by vitamin D pathway SNPs to current prognostic system for melanoma survival
title_fullStr No prognostic value added by vitamin D pathway SNPs to current prognostic system for melanoma survival
title_full_unstemmed No prognostic value added by vitamin D pathway SNPs to current prognostic system for melanoma survival
title_short No prognostic value added by vitamin D pathway SNPs to current prognostic system for melanoma survival
title_sort no prognostic value added by vitamin d pathway snps to current prognostic system for melanoma survival
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5360355/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28323902
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174234
work_keys_str_mv AT luoli noprognosticvalueaddedbyvitamindpathwaysnpstocurrentprognosticsystemformelanomasurvival
AT orlowirene noprognosticvalueaddedbyvitamindpathwaysnpstocurrentprognosticsystemformelanomasurvival
AT kanetskypetera noprognosticvalueaddedbyvitamindpathwaysnpstocurrentprognosticsystemformelanomasurvival
AT thomasnancye noprognosticvalueaddedbyvitamindpathwaysnpstocurrentprognosticsystemformelanomasurvival
AT fangshenying noprognosticvalueaddedbyvitamindpathwaysnpstocurrentprognosticsystemformelanomasurvival
AT leejeffreye noprognosticvalueaddedbyvitamindpathwaysnpstocurrentprognosticsystemformelanomasurvival
AT berwickmarianne noprognosticvalueaddedbyvitamindpathwaysnpstocurrentprognosticsystemformelanomasurvival
AT leejihyun noprognosticvalueaddedbyvitamindpathwaysnpstocurrentprognosticsystemformelanomasurvival
AT noprognosticvalueaddedbyvitamindpathwaysnpstocurrentprognosticsystemformelanomasurvival