Cargando…

Systematic Assessment of Tumor Purity and Its Clinical Implications

PURPOSE: The tumor microenvironment is complex, comprising heterogeneous cellular populations. As molecular profiles are frequently generated using bulk tissue sections, they represent an admixture of multiple cell types (including immune, stromal, and cancer cells) interacting with each other. Ther...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Haider, Syed, Tyekucheva, Svitlana, Prandi, Davide, Fox, Natalie S., Ahn, Jaeil, Xu, Andrew Wei, Pantazi, Angeliki, Park, Peter J., Laird, Peter W., Sander, Chris, Wang, Wenyi, Demichelis, Francesca, Loda, Massimo, Boutros, Paul C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Society of Clinical Oncology 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7529507/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33015524
http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/PO.20.00016
_version_ 1783589450107846656
author Haider, Syed
Tyekucheva, Svitlana
Prandi, Davide
Fox, Natalie S.
Ahn, Jaeil
Xu, Andrew Wei
Pantazi, Angeliki
Park, Peter J.
Laird, Peter W.
Sander, Chris
Wang, Wenyi
Demichelis, Francesca
Loda, Massimo
Boutros, Paul C.
author_facet Haider, Syed
Tyekucheva, Svitlana
Prandi, Davide
Fox, Natalie S.
Ahn, Jaeil
Xu, Andrew Wei
Pantazi, Angeliki
Park, Peter J.
Laird, Peter W.
Sander, Chris
Wang, Wenyi
Demichelis, Francesca
Loda, Massimo
Boutros, Paul C.
author_sort Haider, Syed
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The tumor microenvironment is complex, comprising heterogeneous cellular populations. As molecular profiles are frequently generated using bulk tissue sections, they represent an admixture of multiple cell types (including immune, stromal, and cancer cells) interacting with each other. Therefore, these molecular profiles are confounded by signals emanating from many cell types. Accurate assessment of residual cancer cell fraction is crucial for parameterization and interpretation of genomic analyses, as well as for accurately interpreting the clinical properties of the tumor. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To benchmark cancer cell fraction estimation methods, 10 estimators were applied to a clinical cohort of 333 patients with prostate cancer. These methods include gold-standard multiobserver pathology estimates, as well as estimates inferred from genome, epigenome, and transcriptome data. In addition, two methods based on genomic and transcriptomic profiles were used to quantify tumor purity in 4,497 tumors across 12 cancer types. Bulk mRNA and microRNA profiles were subject to in silico deconvolution to estimate cancer cell–specific mRNA and microRNA profiles. RESULTS: We present a systematic comparison of 10 tumor purity estimation methods on a cohort of 333 prostate tumors. We quantify variation among purity estimation methods and demonstrate how this influences interpretation of clinico-genomic analyses. Our data show poor concordance between pathologic and molecular purity estimates, necessitating caution when interpreting molecular results. Limited concordance between DNA- and mRNA-derived purity estimates remained a general pan-cancer phenomenon when tested in an additional 4,497 tumors spanning 12 cancer types. CONCLUSION: The choice of tumor purity estimation method may have a profound impact on the interpretation of genomic assays. Taken together, these data highlight the need for improved assessment of tumor purity and quantitation of its influences on the molecular hallmarks of cancers.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7529507
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher American Society of Clinical Oncology
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75295072020-10-02 Systematic Assessment of Tumor Purity and Its Clinical Implications Haider, Syed Tyekucheva, Svitlana Prandi, Davide Fox, Natalie S. Ahn, Jaeil Xu, Andrew Wei Pantazi, Angeliki Park, Peter J. Laird, Peter W. Sander, Chris Wang, Wenyi Demichelis, Francesca Loda, Massimo Boutros, Paul C. JCO Precis Oncol Original Reports PURPOSE: The tumor microenvironment is complex, comprising heterogeneous cellular populations. As molecular profiles are frequently generated using bulk tissue sections, they represent an admixture of multiple cell types (including immune, stromal, and cancer cells) interacting with each other. Therefore, these molecular profiles are confounded by signals emanating from many cell types. Accurate assessment of residual cancer cell fraction is crucial for parameterization and interpretation of genomic analyses, as well as for accurately interpreting the clinical properties of the tumor. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To benchmark cancer cell fraction estimation methods, 10 estimators were applied to a clinical cohort of 333 patients with prostate cancer. These methods include gold-standard multiobserver pathology estimates, as well as estimates inferred from genome, epigenome, and transcriptome data. In addition, two methods based on genomic and transcriptomic profiles were used to quantify tumor purity in 4,497 tumors across 12 cancer types. Bulk mRNA and microRNA profiles were subject to in silico deconvolution to estimate cancer cell–specific mRNA and microRNA profiles. RESULTS: We present a systematic comparison of 10 tumor purity estimation methods on a cohort of 333 prostate tumors. We quantify variation among purity estimation methods and demonstrate how this influences interpretation of clinico-genomic analyses. Our data show poor concordance between pathologic and molecular purity estimates, necessitating caution when interpreting molecular results. Limited concordance between DNA- and mRNA-derived purity estimates remained a general pan-cancer phenomenon when tested in an additional 4,497 tumors spanning 12 cancer types. CONCLUSION: The choice of tumor purity estimation method may have a profound impact on the interpretation of genomic assays. Taken together, these data highlight the need for improved assessment of tumor purity and quantitation of its influences on the molecular hallmarks of cancers. American Society of Clinical Oncology 2020-09-04 /pmc/articles/PMC7529507/ /pubmed/33015524 http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/PO.20.00016 Text en © 2020 by American Society of Clinical Oncology https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
spellingShingle Original Reports
Haider, Syed
Tyekucheva, Svitlana
Prandi, Davide
Fox, Natalie S.
Ahn, Jaeil
Xu, Andrew Wei
Pantazi, Angeliki
Park, Peter J.
Laird, Peter W.
Sander, Chris
Wang, Wenyi
Demichelis, Francesca
Loda, Massimo
Boutros, Paul C.
Systematic Assessment of Tumor Purity and Its Clinical Implications
title Systematic Assessment of Tumor Purity and Its Clinical Implications
title_full Systematic Assessment of Tumor Purity and Its Clinical Implications
title_fullStr Systematic Assessment of Tumor Purity and Its Clinical Implications
title_full_unstemmed Systematic Assessment of Tumor Purity and Its Clinical Implications
title_short Systematic Assessment of Tumor Purity and Its Clinical Implications
title_sort systematic assessment of tumor purity and its clinical implications
topic Original Reports
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7529507/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33015524
http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/PO.20.00016
work_keys_str_mv AT haidersyed systematicassessmentoftumorpurityanditsclinicalimplications
AT tyekuchevasvitlana systematicassessmentoftumorpurityanditsclinicalimplications
AT prandidavide systematicassessmentoftumorpurityanditsclinicalimplications
AT foxnatalies systematicassessmentoftumorpurityanditsclinicalimplications
AT ahnjaeil systematicassessmentoftumorpurityanditsclinicalimplications
AT xuandrewwei systematicassessmentoftumorpurityanditsclinicalimplications
AT pantaziangeliki systematicassessmentoftumorpurityanditsclinicalimplications
AT parkpeterj systematicassessmentoftumorpurityanditsclinicalimplications
AT lairdpeterw systematicassessmentoftumorpurityanditsclinicalimplications
AT sanderchris systematicassessmentoftumorpurityanditsclinicalimplications
AT wangwenyi systematicassessmentoftumorpurityanditsclinicalimplications
AT demichelisfrancesca systematicassessmentoftumorpurityanditsclinicalimplications
AT lodamassimo systematicassessmentoftumorpurityanditsclinicalimplications
AT boutrospaulc systematicassessmentoftumorpurityanditsclinicalimplications
AT systematicassessmentoftumorpurityanditsclinicalimplications