Benefits of biomarker selection and clinico-pathological covariate inclusion in breast cancer prognostic models.
BACKGROUND
Multi-marker molecular assays have impacted management of early stage breast cancer, facilitating adjuvant chemotherapy decisions. We generated prognostic models that incorporate protein-based molecular markers and clinico-pathological variables to improve survival prediction.


METHODS
We used a quantitative immunofluorescence method to study protein expression of 14 markers included in the Oncotype DX™ assay on a 638 breast cancer patient cohort with 15-year follow-up. We performed cross-validation analyses to assess performance of multivariate Cox models consisting of these markers and standard clinico-pathological covariates, using an average time-dependent Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve and compared it to nested Cox models obtained by robust backward selection procedures.


RESULTS
A prognostic index derived from a multivariate Cox regression model incorporating molecular and clinico-pathological covariates (nodal status, tumor size, nuclear grade, and age) is superior to models based on molecular studies alone or clinico-pathological covariates alone. Performance of this composite model can be further improved using feature selection techniques to prune variables. When stratifying patients by Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI), most prognostic markers in high and low NPI groups differed. Similarly, for the node-negative, hormone receptor-positive sub-population, we derived a compact model with three clinico-pathological variables and two protein markers that was superior to the full model.


CONCLUSIONS
Prognostic models that include both molecular and clinico-pathological covariates can be more accurate than models based on either set of features alone. Furthermore, feature selection can decrease the number of molecular variables needed to predict outcome, potentially resulting in less expensive assays.
Parisi
Fabio
F
Department of Cell Biology, New York University Center for Health Informatics and Bioinformatics, New York University School of Medicine and Cancer Institute, NY 10016, USA.
Gonzalez
Ana M
AM
Nadler
Yasmine
Y
Camp
Robert L
RL
Rimm
David L
DL
Kluger
Harriet M
HM
Kluger
Yuval
Y
D014408:Biomarkers, Tumor; D001943:Breast Neoplasms / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000473:pathology / Q000628:therapy*; D005260:Female; D015870:Gene Expression; D006801:Humans; D011379:Prognosis; D016016:Proportional Hazards Models; D012372:ROC Curve
D014408:Biomarkers, Tumor
Int J Med Inform. 2005 Aug;74(7-8):491-503
15967710
N Engl J Med. 2004 Dec 30;351(27):2817-26
15591335
Biometrics. 2005 Mar;61(1):92-105
15737082
Ann Oncol. 2010 Mar;21(3):466-473
19717535
Cancer Res. 2003 Apr 1;63(7):1445-8
12670887
Cancer Res. 2009 Aug 15;69(16):6713-20
19638581
Oncogene. 2009 Apr 16;28(15):1812-20
19287456
Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2009 Jun;64(1):79-86
18941749
N Engl J Med. 2007 Feb 22;356(8):800-8
17314339
Bioinformatics. 2008 Oct 1;24(19):2200-8
18635567
Am J Pathol. 2009 Apr;174(4):1172-90
19342371
Biometrics. 2000 Jun;56(2):337-44
10877287
Clin Cancer Res. 2008 Jul 15;14(14):4455-62
18628459
Clin Cancer Res. 2004 Jan 1;10(1 Pt 1):173-7
14734466
Cancer Invest. 2010 Feb;28(2):172-80
19968494
J Clin Oncol. 2006 Aug 10;24(23):3726-34
16720680
Ann Oncol. 2010 Jun;21(6):1254-1261
19858088
Nat Clin Pract Oncol. 2005 May;2(5):246-54
16264960
Cancer Res. 2006 May 15;66(10):5487-94
16707478
Clin Cancer Res. 2006 Feb 1;12(3 Pt 2):1019s-1023s
16467119
Breast Cancer Res. 2008;10(2):R35
18430249
Cancer. 2009 Jun 1;115(11):2400-9
19330842
Oncogene. 2009 Aug 13;28(32):2903-9
19543324
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009 Oct;117(3):483-95
18819002
Am J Pathol. 2004 Jan;164(1):35-42
14695316
Oncologist. 2007 Jun;12(6):631-5
17602054
Oncologist. 2008 May;13(5):477-93
18515733
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Sep 1;26(25):4063-71
18678838
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006 Sep 6;98(17):1183-92
16954471
Nat Med. 2002 Nov;8(11):1323-7
12389040
Cancer. 2008 Jun 15;112(12):2765-73
18442042