Cargando…
Development and Validation of a Novel RNA Sequencing–Based Prognostic Score for Acute Myeloid Leukemia
BACKGROUND: Recent progress in sequencing technologies allows us to explore comprehensive genomic and transcriptomic information to improve the current European LeukemiaNet (ELN) system of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). METHODS: We compared the prognostic value of traditional demographic and cytogene...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6186516/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29506270 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djy021 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: Recent progress in sequencing technologies allows us to explore comprehensive genomic and transcriptomic information to improve the current European LeukemiaNet (ELN) system of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). METHODS: We compared the prognostic value of traditional demographic and cytogenetic risk factors, genomic data in the form of somatic aberrations of 25 AML-relevant genes, and whole-transcriptome expression profiling (RNA sequencing) in 267 intensively treated AML patients (Clinseq-AML). Multivariable penalized Cox models (overall survival [OS]) were developed for each data modality (clinical, genomic, transcriptomic), together with an associated prognostic risk score. RESULTS: Of the three data modalities, transcriptomic data provided the best prognostic value, with an integrated area under the curve (iAUC) of a time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of 0.73. We developed a prognostic risk score (Clinseq-G) from transcriptomic data, which was validated in the independent The Cancer Genome Atlas AML cohort (RNA sequencing, n = 142, iAUC = 0.73, comparing the high-risk group with the low-risk group, hazard ratio [HR](OS) = 2.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.51 to 3.88). Comparison between Clinseq-G and ELN score iAUC estimates indicated strong evidence in favor of the Clinseq-G model (Bayes factor = 26.78). The proposed model remained statistically significant in multivariable analysis including the ELN and other well-known risk factors (HR(os) = 2.34, 95% CI = 1.30 to 4.22). We further validated the Clinseq-G model in a second independent data set (n = 458, iAUC = 0.66, adjusted HR(OS) = 2.02, 95% CI = 1.33 to 3.08; adjusted HR(EFS) = 2.10, 95% CI = 1.42 to 3.12). CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that the Clinseq-G prediction model, based on transcriptomic data from RNA sequencing, outperforms traditional clinical parameters and previously reported models based on genomic biomarkers. |
---|