Network-based stratification analysis of 13 major cancer types using mutations in panels of cancer genes

BackgroundCancers are complex diseases with heterogeneous genetic causes and clinical outcomes. It is critical to classify patients into subtypes and associate the subtypes with clinical outcomes for better prognosis and treatment. Large-scale studies have comprehensively identified somatic mutations across multiple tumor types, providing rich datasets for classifying patients based on genomic mutations. One challenge associated with this task is that mutations are rarely shared across patients. Network-based stratification (NBS) approaches have been proposed to overcome this challenge and used to classify tumors based on exome-level mutations. In routine research and clinical applications, however, usually only a small panel of pre-selected genes is screened for mutations. It is unknown whether such small panels are effective in classifying patients into clinically meaningful subtypes.ResultsIn this study, we applied NBS to 13 major cancer types with exome-level mutation data and compared the classification based on the full exome data with those focusing only on small sets of genes. Specifically, we investigated three panels, FoundationOne (240 genes), PanCan (127 genes) and TruSeq (48 genes). We showed that small panels not only are effective in clustering tumors but also often outperform full exome data for most cancer types. We further associated subtypes with clinical data and identified 5 tumor types (CRC-Colorectal carcinoma, HNSC-Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, KIRC-Kidney renal clear cell carcinoma, LUAD-Lung adenocarcinoma and UCEC-Uterine corpus endometrial carcinoma) whose subtypes are significantly associated with overall survival, all based on small panels.ConclusionOur analyses indicate that effective patient subtyping can be carried out using mutations detected in smaller gene panels, probably due to the enrichment of clinically important genes in such panels.

[1]  Jiawei Han,et al.  Non-negative Matrix Factorization on Manifold , 2008, 2008 Eighth IEEE International Conference on Data Mining.

[2]  Andrew M. Gross,et al.  Network-based stratification of tumor mutations , 2013, Nature Methods.

[3]  C. Sander,et al.  Mutual exclusivity analysis identifies oncogenic network modules. , 2012, Genome research.

[4]  Benjamin J. Raphael,et al.  Multiplatform Analysis of 12 Cancer Types Reveals Molecular Classification within and across Tissues of Origin , 2014, Cell.

[5]  Steven J. M. Jones,et al.  Integrated genomic characterization of endometrial carcinoma , 2013, Nature.

[6]  L. Pusztai,et al.  Gene expression profiling in breast cancer: classification, prognostication, and prediction , 2011, The Lancet.

[7]  Pablo Tamayo,et al.  Metagenes and molecular pattern discovery using matrix factorization , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[8]  K. Kinzler,et al.  Cancer Genome Landscapes , 2013, Science.

[9]  Alex M. Fichtenholtz,et al.  Development and validation of a clinical cancer genomic profiling test based on massively parallel DNA sequencing , 2013, Nature Biotechnology.

[10]  B. Karlan,et al.  Gene expression profile of BRCAness that correlates with responsiveness to chemotherapy and with outcome in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. , 2010, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[11]  Jeffrey J Meyer,et al.  Cancer Genome Atlas Network. Comprehensive molecular characterization of human colon and rectal cancer. Nature 2012. (5) , 2013 .

[12]  E. Marcotte,et al.  Prioritizing candidate disease genes by network-based boosting of genome-wide association data. , 2011, Genome research.

[13]  Magali Olivier,et al.  Somatic mutations in cancer prognosis and prediction: lessons from TP53 and EGFR genes , 2011, Current opinion in oncology.

[14]  Steven J. M. Jones,et al.  Comprehensive molecular characterization of human colon and rectal cancer , 2012, Nature.

[15]  X. Chen,et al.  EGFR-Mutant Lung Adenocarcinomas Treated First-Line with the Novel EGFR Inhibitor, XL647, Can Subsequently Retain Moderate Sensitivity to Erlotinib , 2012, Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

[16]  S. Gabriel,et al.  Discovery and saturation analysis of cancer genes across 21 tumor types , 2014, Nature.

[17]  R. Sharan,et al.  Protein networks in disease. , 2008, Genome research.

[18]  Pamela K. Kreeger,et al.  Cancer systems biology: a network modeling perspective , 2009, Carcinogenesis.

[19]  S. Cannistra,et al.  Gene-expression profiling in epithelial ovarian cancer , 2008, Nature Clinical Practice Oncology.

[20]  T. Ideker,et al.  Network-based classification of breast cancer metastasis , 2007, Molecular systems biology.

[21]  Steven A. Roberts,et al.  Mutational heterogeneity in cancer and the search for new cancer genes , 2014 .

[22]  Steven A. Roberts,et al.  Mutational heterogeneity in cancer and the search for new cancer-associated genes , 2013 .

[23]  Peilin Jia,et al.  Acquired resistance of EGFR-mutant lung adenocarcinomas to afatinib plus cetuximab is associated with activation of mTORC1. , 2014, Cell reports.

[24]  D. Hanahan,et al.  Hallmarks of Cancer: The Next Generation , 2011, Cell.

[25]  Jill P. Mesirov,et al.  Consensus Clustering: A Resampling-Based Method for Class Discovery and Visualization of Gene Expression Microarray Data , 2003, Machine Learning.

[26]  R. Yelensky,et al.  Molecular profiling of the residual disease of triple-negative breast cancers after neoadjuvant chemotherapy identifies actionable therapeutic targets. , 2014, Cancer discovery.

[27]  H. Sebastian Seung,et al.  Learning the parts of objects by non-negative matrix factorization , 1999, Nature.

[28]  Benjamin J. Raphael,et al.  Mutational landscape and significance across 12 major cancer types , 2013, Nature.

[29]  Benjamin J. Raphael,et al.  Integrated Genomic Analyses of Ovarian Carcinoma , 2011, Nature.