Abstract
Most cancer treatments benefit only a minority of patients. This has led to a widespread interest in the identification of gene-expression-based prognostic signatures. Well-developed and validated genomic signatures can lead to personalized treatment decisions resulting in improved patient management. However, the pace of acceptance of these signatures in clinical practice has been slow. This is because many of the signatures have been developed without clear focus on the intended clinical use, and proper independent validation studies establishing their medical utility have rarely been performed. The practicing physician and the patient are thus left in doubt about the reliability and medical utility of the signatures. We aim to provide guidance to physicians in critically evaluating published studies on prognostic gene-expression signatures so that they are better equipped to decide which signatures, if any, have sufficient merit for use, in conjunction with other factors in helping their patients to make good treatment decisions. A discussion of the lessons to be learned from the successful development of the Oncotype DX® genetic test for breast cancer is presented and contrasted with a review of the current status of prognostic gene-expression signatures in non-small-cell lung cancer.
Key Points
-
Though many gene-expression-based prognostic signatures have been reported in the literature, very few are used in clinical practice
-
Developmental studies on prognostic signatures should be designed and analyzed to address a clearly defined, medically important use for such signatures to become useful for improving patient treatment decisions
-
Prognostic signatures should be evaluated in independent validation studies before use in clinical practice
-
Validation studies should be prospectively planned focused evaluations of whether a previously defined signature improves patient outcome by informing therapeutic decision making compared with use of current practice standards
-
The gold standard for establishing clinical utility of a prognostic signature is its validation in a prospective clinical trial to evaluate the medical utility of the proposed signature
-
In some cases, focused analysis using archived specimens from multiple suitable clinical trials, if performed under strict conditions, can provide a high level of evidence of clinical utility
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Lesko, L. J. & Atkinson, A. J. Jr. Use of biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in drug development and regulatory decision making: criteria, validation, strategies. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 41, 347–366 (2001).
Sparano, J. A. & Paik, S. Development of the 21-gene assay and its application in clinical practice and clinical trials. J. Clin. Oncol. 26, 721–728 (2008).
Hayes, D. F. Prognostic and predictive factors revisited. Breast 14, 493–499 (2005).
Gennari, A. et al. HER2 status and efficacy of adjuvant anthracyclines in early breast cancer: a pooled analysis of randomized trials. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 100, 14–20 (2008).
Amado, R. G. et al. Wild-type KRAS is required for panitumumab efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 26, 1626–1634 (2008).
West, M. et al. Predicting the clinical status of human breast cancer by using gene expression profiles. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98, 11462–11467 (2001).
Radmacher, M. D., McShane, L. M. & Simon, R. A paradigm for class prediction using gene expression profiles. J. Comput. Biol. 9, 505–511 (2002).
Simon, R. et al. in Design and Analysis of DNA Microarray Investigations (Springer Verlag, New York, 2003).
Speed, T. P. (ed) Statistical Analysis of Gene Expression Microarray Data (Chapman and Hall, 2003).
Wang, Y., Miller D. J. & Clarke, R. Approaches to working in high-dimensional data spaces: gene expression microarrays. Br. J. Cancer 98, 1023–1028 (2008).
Dupuy, A. & Simon, R. Critical review of published microarray studies for cancer outcome and guidelines on statistical analysis and reporting. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 99, 147–157 (2007).
Simon, R. et al. Analysis of gene expression data using BRB-Array Tools. Cancer Inform. 3, 11–17 (2007).
National Cancer Institute Biometric Research Branch Division of Cancer and Diagnosis [online], (2009).
National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology™ Non-small cell lung cancer © 2009 Available at: http://www.nccn.org Vol. 2.2009.
Potti, A. et al. A genomic strategy to refine prognosis in early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 355, 570–580 (2006).
Subramanian, J. & Simon, R. Gene expression-based prognostic signatures in lung cancer: Ready for clinical use? J. Natl Cancer Inst. 102, 464–474 (2010).
Bast, R. C. Jr et al. 2000 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast and colorectal cancer: clinical practice guidelines of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. J. Clin. Oncol. 19, 1865–1878 (2001).
Dobbin, K. Zhao, Y. & Simon, R. How large a training set is needed to develop a classifier for microarray data? Clin. Cancer Res. 14, 108–114 (2008).
Simon, R. et al. Pitfalls in the use of DNA microarray data for diagnostic and prognostic classification. J. Natl Cancer. Inst. 95, 14–18 (2003).
Molinaro, A. M., Simon, R. & Pfeiffer, R. M. Prediction error estimation: a comparison of resampling methods. Bioinformatics 21, 3301–3307 (2005).
Pepe, M. S., Janes, H., Longton, G., Leisenring, W. & Newcomb, P. Limitations of the odds ratio in gauging the performance of a diagnostic, prognostic, or screening marker. Am. J. Epidemiol. 159, 882–890 (2004).
Kattan, M. W. Evaluating a new marker's predictive contribution. Clin. Cancer Res. 10, 822–824 (2004).
Heagerty, P. J., Lumley, T. & Pepe, M. S. Time-dependent ROC curves for censored survival data and a diagnostic marker. Biometrics 56, 337–344 (2000).
Simon, R., Paik, S. & Hayes, D. F. Use of archived specimens in evaluation of prognostic and predictive biomarkers. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 101, 1446–1452 (2009).
Hayes, D. F. et al. Tumor marker utility grading system: a framework to evaluate clinical utility of tumor markers. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 88, 1456–1466 (1996).
Simon, R. Clinical trial designs for evaluating the medical utility of prognostic and predictive biomarkers in oncology. Personalized Med. 7, 33–47 (2010).
Simon, R. The use of genomics in clinical trial design. Clin. Cancer Res. 14, 5984–5993 (2008).
Simon, R. & Wang, S. J. Use of genomic signatures in therapeutics development. Pharmacogenomics J. 6, 166–173 (2006).
Zujewski, J. A. & Kamin, L. Trial assessing individualized options for treatment for breast cancer: the TAILORx trial. Future Oncol. 4, 603–610 (2008).
Cardoso, F. et al. Clinical application of the 70-gene profile: the MINDACT trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 26, 729–735 (2008).
Albain, K. S. Prognostic and predictive value of the 21-gene recurrence score assay in postmenopausal women with node-positive, oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer on chemotherapy: a retrospective analysis of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 11, 55–65 (2010).
Tanoue, L. T. Staging of non-small cell lung cancer. Semin. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 29, 248–260 (2008).
Clinicaltrials.gov Chemotherapy or observation in treating patients with stage I non-small cell lung cancer [online], (2010).
Ullmann, C. D. & McShane, L. Erratum to: Translating genomics into clinical practice: applications in lung cancer. Curr. Oncol. Rep. 11, 413–496 (2009).
Cronin, M. et al. Analytical validation of the Oncotype DX genomic diagnostic test for recurrence prognosis and therapeutic response prediction in node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Clin. Chem. 53, 1084–1091 (2007).
Paik, S. et al. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 351, 2817–2826 (2004).
Sotiriou, C. & Pusztai, L. Gene-expression signatures in breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 360, 790–800 (2009).
Fan, C. et al. Concordance among gene-expression-based predictors for breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 355, 560–569 (2006).
Wirapati, P. et al. Meta-analysis of gene expression profiles in breast cancer: toward a unified understanding of breast cancer subtyping and prognosis signatures. Breast Cancer Res. 10, R65 (2008).
Couzin, J. Diagnostics. Amid debate, gene-based cancer test approved. Science. 315, 924 (2007).
Harris, L. et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 25, 5287–5312 (2007).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Subramanian, J., Simon, R. What should physicians look for in evaluating prognostic gene-expression signatures?. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 7, 327–334 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2010.60
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2010.60
This article is cited by
-
Criteria for the translation of radiomics into clinically useful tests
Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology (2023)
-
Identification of a novel m6A-related lncRNA pair signature for predicting the prognosis of gastric cancer patients
BMC Gastroenterology (2022)
-
Identification of novel cell glycolysis related gene signature predicting survival in patients with endometrial cancer
Cancer Cell International (2019)
-
Evaluation of data discretization methods to derive platform independent isoform expression signatures for multi-class tumor subtyping
BMC Genomics (2015)
-
Assessment of reproducibility of cancer survival risk predictions across medical centers
BMC Medical Research Methodology (2013)