Cargando…

A comparative study of survival models for breast cancer prognostication revisited: the benefits of multi-gene models

BACKGROUND: The development of clinical -omic biomarkers for predicting patient prognosis has mostly focused on multi-gene models. However, several studies have described significant weaknesses of multi-gene biomarkers. Indeed, some high-profile reports have even indicated that multi-gene biomarkers...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Grzadkowski, Michal R., Sendorek, Dorota H., P’ng, Christine, Huang, Vincent, Boutros, Paul C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6215649/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30390622
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12859-018-2430-9
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: The development of clinical -omic biomarkers for predicting patient prognosis has mostly focused on multi-gene models. However, several studies have described significant weaknesses of multi-gene biomarkers. Indeed, some high-profile reports have even indicated that multi-gene biomarkers fail to consistently outperform simple single-gene ones. Given the continual improvements in -omics technologies and the availability of larger, better-powered datasets, we revisited this “single-gene hypothesis” using new techniques and datasets. RESULTS: By deeply sampling the population of available gene sets, we compare the intrinsic properties of single-gene biomarkers to multi-gene biomarkers in twelve different partitions of a large breast cancer meta-dataset. We show that simple multi-gene models consistently outperformed single-gene biomarkers in all twelve partitions. We found 270 multi-gene biomarkers (one per ~11,111 sampled) that always made better predictions than the best single-gene model. CONCLUSIONS: The single-gene hypothesis for breast cancer does not appear to retain its validity in the face of improved statistical models, lower-noise genomic technology and better-powered patient cohorts. These results highlight that it is critical to revisit older hypotheses in the light of newer techniques and datasets. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12859-018-2430-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.