Patent Grant
11035005
Cancer is the uncontrolled growth of abnormal cells anywhere in a body. The abnormal cells are termed cancer cells, malignant cells, or tumor cells. Many cancers and the abnormal cells that compose the cancer tissue are further identified by the name of the tissue that the abnormal cells originated from (for example, breast cancer, lung cancer, colon cancer, prostate cancer, pancreatic cancer, thyroid cancer). Cancer is not confined to humans; animals and other living organisms can get cancer. Cancer cells can proliferate uncontrollably and form a mass of cancer cells. Cancer cells can break away from this original mass of cells, travel through the blood and lymph systems, and lodge in other organs where they can again repeat the uncontrolled growth cycle. This process of cancer cells leaving an area and growing in another body area is often termed metastatic spread or metastatic disease. For example, if breast cancer cells spread to a bone (or anywhere else), it can mean that the individual has metastatic breast cancer.
Standard clinical parameters such as tumor size, grade, lymph node involvement and tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging (American Joint Committee on Cancer www.cancerstaging.org) may correlate with outcome and serve to stratify patients with respect to (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy, immunotherapy, antibody therapy and/or radiotherapy regimens. Incorporation of molecular markers in clinical practice may define tumor subtypes that are more likely to respond to targeted therapy. However, stage-matched tumors grouped by histological or molecular subtypes may respond differently to the same treatment regimen. Additional key genetic and epigenetic alterations may exist with important etiological contributions. A more detailed understanding of the molecular mechanisms and regulatory pathways at work in cancer cells and the tumor microenvironment (TME) could dramatically improve the design of novel anti-tumor drugs and inform the selection of optimal therapeutic strategies. The development and implementation of diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic biomarkers to characterize the biology of each tumor may assist clinicians in making important decisions with regard to individual patient care and treatment. Thus, disclosed herein are methods, compositions and systems for the analysis of coding and non-coding targets for the diagnosis, prognosis, and monitoring of a cancer.
This background information is provided for the purpose of making known information believed by the applicant to be of possible relevance to the present invention. No admission is necessarily intended, nor should be construed, that any of the preceding information constitutes prior art against the present invention.
Disclosed herein in some embodiments is a method of diagnosing, prognosing, determining progression the cancer, or predicting benefit from therapy in a subject, comprising (a) assaying an expression level in a sample from the subject for a plurality of targets, wherein the plurality of targets comprises one or more targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55; and (b) diagnosing, prognosing, determining progression the cancer, or predicting benefit from therapy in a subject based on the expression levels of the plurality of targets. In some embodiments, the cancer is selected from the group consisting of a carcinoma, sarcoma, leukemia, lymphoma, myeloma, and a CNS tumor. In some embodiments, cancer is selected from the group consisting of skin cancer, lung cancer, colon cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, liver cancer, thyroid cancer, ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer, kidney cancer, epithelial carcinoma, squamous carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, melanoma, papilloma, and adenomas. In some embodiments, the cancer is a prostate cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a pancreatic cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a thyroid cancer. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises a coding target. In some embodiments, the coding target is an exonic sequence. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises a non-coding target. In some embodiments, the non-coding target comprises an intronic sequence or partially overlaps an intronic sequence. In some embodiments, the non-coding target comprises a sequence within the UTR or partially overlaps with a UTR sequence. In some embodiments, the non-coding target comprises an antisense sequence or partially overlaps with an antisense sequence. In some embodiments, the non-coding target comprises an intergenic sequence or partially overlaps with an intergenic sequence. In some embodiments, the target comprises a nucleic acid sequence. In some embodiments, the nucleic acid sequence is a DNA sequence. In some embodiments, the nucleic acid sequence is an RNA sequence. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 5 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 10 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 15 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 20 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 30 targets selected from Tables 2, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 35 targets selected from Tables 2, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 40 targets selected from Tables 2, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the diagnosing, prognosing, determining progression the cancer, or predicting benefit from therapy includes determining the malignancy of the cancer. In some embodiments, the diagnosing, prognosing, determining progression the cancer, or predicting benefit from therapy includes determining the stage of the cancer. In some embodiments, the diagnosing, prognosing, determining progression the cancer, or predicting benefit from therapy includes assessing the risk of cancer recurrence. In some embodiments, determining the treatment for the cancer includes determining the efficacy of treatment. In some embodiments, the method further comprises sequencing the plurality of targets. In some embodiments, the method further comprises hybridizing the plurality of targets to a solid support. In some embodiments, the solid support is a bead or array. In some embodiments, assaying the expression level of a plurality of targets may comprise the use of a probe set. In some embodiments, assaying the expression level may comprise the use of a classifier. The classifier may comprise a probe selection region (PSR). In some embodiments, the classifier may comprise the use of an algorithm. The algorithm may comprise a machine learning algorithm. In some embodiments, assaying the expression level may also comprise sequencing the plurality of targets.
Disclosed herein in some embodiments is a method of determining a treatment for a cancer in a subject, comprising (a) assaying an expression level in a sample from the subject for a plurality of targets, wherein the plurality of targets comprises one or more targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55; and (b) determining the treatment for the cancer based on the expression level of the plurality of targets. In some embodiments, the cancer is selected from the group consisting of a carcinoma, sarcoma, leukemia, lymphoma, myeloma, and a CNS tumor. In some embodiments, cancer is selected from the group consisting of skin cancer, lung cancer, colon cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, liver cancer, thyroid cancer, ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer, kidney cancer, epithelial carcinoma, squamous carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, melanoma, papilloma, and adenomas. In some embodiments, the cancer is a prostate cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a pancreatic cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a thyroid cancer. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises a coding target. In some embodiments, the coding target is an exonic sequence. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises a non-coding target. In some embodiments, the non-coding target comprises an intronic sequence or partially overlaps an intronic sequence. In some embodiments, the non-coding target comprises a sequence within the UTR or partially overlaps with a UTR sequence. In some embodiments, the target comprises a nucleic acid sequence. In some embodiments, the nucleic acid sequence is a DNA sequence. In some embodiments, the nucleic acid sequence is an RNA sequence. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 5 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 10 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 15 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 20 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 30 targets selected from Tables 2, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 35 targets selected from Tables 2, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 40 targets selected from Tables 2, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the diagnosing, prognosing, determining progression the cancer, or predicting benefit from therapy includes determining the malignancy of the cancer. In some embodiments, the diagnosing, prognosing, determining progression the cancer, or predicting benefit from therapy includes determining the stage of the cancer. In some embodiments, the diagnosing, prognosing, determining progression the cancer, or predicting benefit from therapy includes assessing the risk of cancer recurrence. In some embodiments, determining the treatment for the cancer includes determining the efficacy of treatment. In some embodiments, the method further comprises sequencing the plurality of targets. In some embodiments, the method further comprises hybridizing the plurality of targets to a solid support. In some embodiments, the solid support is a bead or array. In some embodiments, assaying the expression level of a plurality of targets may comprise the use of a probe set. In some embodiments, assaying the expression level may comprise the use of a classifier. The classifier may comprise a probe selection region (PSR). In some embodiments, the classifier may comprise the use of an algorithm. The algorithm may comprise a machine learning algorithm. In some embodiments, assaying the expression level may also comprise amplifying the plurality of targets. In some embodiments, assaying the expression level may also comprise quantifying the plurality of targets.
Further disclosed herein in some embodiments is a probe set for assessing a cancer status of a subject comprising a plurality of probes, wherein the probes in the set are capable of detecting an expression level of one or more targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55, wherein the expression level determines the cancer status of the subject with at least 40% specificity. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 5 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 10 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 15 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 20 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 30 targets selected from Tables 2, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 35 targets selected from Tables 2, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 40 targets selected from Tables 2, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the cancer is selected from the group consisting of a carcinoma, sarcoma, leukemia, lymphoma, myeloma, and a CNS tumor. In some embodiments, the cancer is selected from the group consisting of skin cancer, lung cancer, colon cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, liver cancer, thyroid cancer, ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer, kidney cancer, epithelial carcinoma, squamous carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, melanoma, papilloma, and adenomas. In some embodiments, the cancer is a prostate cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a pancreatic cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a thyroid cancer. In some embodiments, the probe set further comprises a probe capable of detecting an expression level of at least one coding target. In some embodiments, the coding target is an exonic sequence. In some embodiments, the probe set further comprises a probe capable of detecting an expression level of at least one non-coding target. In some embodiments, the non-coding target is an intronic sequence or partially overlaps with an intronic sequence. In some embodiments, the non-coding target is a UTR sequence or partially overlaps with a UTR sequence. In some embodiments, assessing the cancer status includes assessing cancer recurrence risk. In some embodiments, assessing the cancer status includes determining a treatment modality. In some embodiments, assessing the cancer status includes determining the efficacy of treatment. In some embodiments, the target is a nucleic acid sequence. In some embodiments, the nucleic acid sequence is a DNA sequence. In some embodiments, the nucleic acid sequence is an RNA sequence. In some embodiments, the probes are between about 15 nucleotides and about 500 nucleotides in length. In some embodiments, the probes are between about 15 nucleotides and about 450 nucleotides in length. In some embodiments, the probes are between about 15 nucleotides and about 400 nucleotides in length. In some embodiments, the probes are between about 15 nucleotides and about 350 nucleotides in length. In some embodiments, the probes are between about 15 nucleotides and about 300 nucleotides in length. In some embodiments, the probes are between about 15 nucleotides and about 250 nucleotides in length. In some embodiments, the probes are between about 15 nucleotides and about 200 nucleotides in length. In some embodiments, the probes are at least 15 nucleotides in length. In some embodiments, the probes are at least 25 nucleotides in length. In some embodiments, the expression level determines the cancer status of the subject with at least 50% specificity. In some embodiments, the expression level determines the cancer status of the subject with at least 60% specificity. In some embodiments, the expression level determines the cancer status of the subject with at least 65% specificity. In some embodiments, the expression level determines the cancer status of the subject with at least 70% specificity. In some embodiments, the expression level determines the cancer status of the subject with at least 75% specificity. In some embodiments, the expression level determines the cancer status of the subject with at least 80% specificity. In some embodiments, the expression level determines the cancer status of the subject with at least 85% specificity. In some embodiments, the non-coding target is a non-coding RNA transcript and the non-coding RNA transcript is non-polyadenylated.
Further disclosed herein in some embodiments is a system for analyzing a cancer, comprising: (a) a probe set comprising a plurality of target sequences, wherein (i) the plurality of target sequences hybridizes to one or more targets selected from Tables 2 or 4; or (ii) the plurality of target sequences comprises one or more target sequences selected from Table 11; and (b) a computer model or algorithm for analyzing an expression level and/or expression profile of the target hybridized to the probe in a sample from a subject suffering from a cancer. In some embodiments, the system further comprises an electronic memory for capturing and storing an expression profile. In some embodiments, the system further comprises a computer-processing device, optionally connected to a computer network. In some embodiments, the system further comprises a software module executed by the computer-processing device to analyze an expression profile. In some embodiments, the system further comprises a software module executed by the computer-processing device to compare the expression profile to a standard or control. In some embodiments, the system further comprises a software module executed by the computer-processing device to determine the expression level of the target. In some embodiments, the system further comprises a machine to isolate the target or the probe from the sample. In some embodiments, the system further comprises a machine to sequence the target or the probe. In some embodiments, the system further comprises a machine to amplify the target or the probe. In some embodiments, the system further comprises a label that specifically binds to the target, the probe, or a combination thereof. In some embodiments, the system further comprises a software module executed by the computer-processing device to transmit an analysis of the expression profile to the individual or a medical professional treating the individual. In some embodiments, the system further comprises a software module executed by the computer-processing device to transmit a diagnosis or prognosis to the individual or a medical professional treating the individual. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 5 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 10 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 15 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 20 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 30 targets selected from Tables 2, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 35 targets selected from Tables 2, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 40 targets selected from Tables 2, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the cancer is selected from the group consisting of a carcinoma, sarcoma, leukemia, lymphoma, myeloma, and a CNS tumor. In some embodiments, the cancer is selected from the group consisting of skin cancer, lung cancer, colon cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, liver cancer, thyroid cancer, ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer, kidney cancer, epithelial carcinoma, squamous carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, melanoma, papilloma, and adenomas. In some embodiments, the system further comprises a sequence for sequencing the plurality of targets. In some embodiments, the system further comprises an instrument for amplifying the plurality of targets. In some embodiments, the system further comprises a label for labeling the plurality of targets.
Further disclosed herein in some embodiments is a method of analyzing a cancer in an individual in need thereof, comprising: (a) obtaining an expression profile from a sample obtained from the individual, wherein the expression profile comprises one or more targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55; and (b) comparing the expression profile from the sample to an expression profile of a control or standard. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 5 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 10 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 15 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 20 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 30 targets selected from Tables 2, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 35 targets selected from Tables 2, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 40 targets selected from Tables 2, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the cancer is selected from the group consisting of a carcinoma, sarcoma, leukemia, lymphoma, myeloma, and a CNS tumor. In some embodiments, the cancer is selected from the group consisting of skin cancer, lung cancer, colon cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, liver cancer, thyroid cancer, ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer, kidney cancer, epithelial carcinoma, squamous carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, melanoma, papilloma, and adenomas. In some embodiments, the cancer is a prostate cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a pancreatic cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a breast cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a thyroid cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a lung cancer. In some embodiments, the method further comprises a software module executed by a computer-processing device to compare the expression profiles. In some embodiments, the method further comprises providing diagnostic or prognostic information to the individual about the cardiovascular disorder based on the comparison. In some embodiments, the method further comprises diagnosing the individual with a cancer if the expression profile of the sample (a) deviates from the control or standard from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals, or (b) matches the control or standard from an individual or population of individuals who have or have had the cancer. In some embodiments, the method further comprises predicting the susceptibility of the individual for developing a cancer based on (a) the deviation of the expression profile of the sample from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals, or (b) the similarity of the expression profiles of the sample and a control or standard derived from an individual or population of individuals who have or have had the cancer. In some embodiments, the method further comprises prescribing a treatment regimen based on (a) the deviation of the expression profile of the sample from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals, or (b) the similarity of the expression profiles of the sample and a control or standard derived from an individual or population of individuals who have or have had the cancer. In some embodiments, the method further comprises altering a treatment regimen prescribed or administered to the individual based on (a) the deviation of the expression profile of the sample from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals, or (b) the similarity of the expression profiles of the sample and a control or standard derived from an individual or population of individuals who have or have had the cancer. In some embodiments, the method further comprises predicting the individual's response to a treatment regimen based on (a) the deviation of the expression profile of the sample from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals, or (b) the similarity of the expression profiles of the sample and a control or standard derived from an individual or population of individuals who have or have had the cancer. In some embodiments, the deviation is the expression level of one or more targets from the sample is greater than the expression level of one or more targets from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals. In some embodiments, the deviation is the expression level of one or more targets from the sample is at least about 30% greater than the expression level of one or more targets from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals. In some embodiments, the deviation is the expression level of one or more targets from the sample is less than the expression level of one or more targets from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals. In some embodiments, the deviation is the expression level of one or more targets from the sample is at least about 30% less than the expression level of one or more targets from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals. In some embodiments, the method further comprises using a machine to isolate the target or the probe from the sample. In some embodiments, the method further comprises contacting the sample with a label that specifically binds to the target, the probe, or a combination thereof. In some embodiments, the method further comprises contacting the sample with a label that specifically binds to a target selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55, or a combination thereof. In some embodiments, the method further comprises amplifying the target, the probe, or any combination thereof. In some embodiments, the method further comprises sequencing the target, the probe, or any combination thereof. In some embodiments, the method further comprises quantifying the expression level of the plurality of targets. In some embodiments, the method further comprises labeling the plurality of targets. In some embodiments, assaying the expression level of a plurality of targets may comprise the use of a probe set. In some embodiments, obtaining the expression level may comprise the use of a classifier. The classifier may comprise a probe selection region (PSR). In some embodiments, the classifier may comprise the use of an algorithm. The algorithm may comprise a machine learning algorithm. In some embodiments, obtaining the expression level may also comprise sequencing the plurality of targets.
Disclosed herein in some embodiments is a method of diagnosing cancer in an individual in need thereof, comprising (a) obtaining an expression profile from a sample obtained from the individual, wherein the expression profile comprises one or more targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55; (b) comparing the expression profile from the sample to an expression profile of a control or standard; and (c) diagnosing a cancer in the individual if the expression profile of the sample (i) deviates from the control or standard from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals, or (ii) matches the control or standard from an individual or population of individuals who have or have had the cancer. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 5 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 10 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 15 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 20 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 30 targets selected from Tables 2, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 35 targets selected from Tables 2, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 40 targets selected from Tables 2, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the cancer is selected from the group consisting of a carcinoma, sarcoma, leukemia, lymphoma, myeloma, and a CNS tumor. In some embodiments, the cancer is selected from the group consisting of skin cancer, lung cancer, colon cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, liver cancer, thyroid cancer, ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer, kidney cancer, epithelial carcinoma, squamous carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, melanoma, papilloma, and adenomas. In some embodiments, the cancer is a prostate cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a pancreatic cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a breast cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a thyroid cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a lung cancer. In some embodiments, the method further comprises a software module executed by a computer-processing device to compare the expression profiles. In some embodiments, the deviation is the expression level of one or more targets from the sample is greater than the expression level of one or more targets from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals. In some embodiments, the deviation is the expression level of one or more targets from the sample is at least about 30% greater than the expression level of one or more targets from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals. In some embodiments, the deviation is the expression level of one or more targets from the sample is less than the expression level of one or more targets from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals. In some embodiments, the deviation is the expression level of one or more targets from the sample is at least about 30% less than the expression level of one or more targets from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals. In some embodiments, the method further comprises using a machine to isolate the target or the probe from the sample. In some embodiments, the method further comprises contacting the sample with a label that specifically binds to the target, the probe, or a combination thereof. In some embodiments, the method further comprises contacting the sample with a label that specifically binds to a target selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55, or a combination thereof. In some embodiments, the method further comprises amplifying the target, the probe, or any combination thereof. In some embodiments, the method further comprises sequencing the target, the probe, or any combination thereof. In some embodiments, the method further comprises quantifying the expression level of the plurality of targets. In some embodiments, the method further comprises labeling the plurality of targets. In some embodiments, obtaining the expression level may comprise the use of a classifier. The classifier may comprise a probe selection region (PSR). In some embodiments, the classifier may comprise the use of an algorithm. The algorithm may comprise a machine learning algorithm. In some embodiments, obtaining the expression level may also comprise sequencing the plurality of targets.
Further disclosed herein in some embodiments is a method of predicting whether an individual is susceptible to developing a cancer, comprising (a) obtaining an expression profile from a sample obtained from the individual, wherein the expression profile comprises one or more targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55; (b) comparing the expression profile from the sample to an expression profile of a control or standard; and (c) predicting the susceptibility of the individual for developing a cancer based on (i) the deviation of the expression profile of the sample from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals, or (ii) the similarity of the expression profiles of the sample and a control or standard derived from an individual or population of individuals who have or have had the cancer. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 5 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 10 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 15 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 20 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 30 targets selected from Tables 2, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 35 targets selected from Tables 2, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 40 targets selected from Tables 2, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the cancer is selected from the group consisting of a carcinoma, sarcoma, leukemia, lymphoma, myeloma, and a CNS tumor. In some embodiments, the cancer is selected from the group consisting of skin cancer, lung cancer, colon cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, liver cancer, thyroid cancer, ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer, kidney cancer, epithelial carcinoma, squamous carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, melanoma, papilloma, and adenomas. In some embodiments, the cancer is a prostate cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a pancreatic cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a breast cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a thyroid cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a lung cancer. In some embodiments, the method further comprises a software module executed by a computer-processing device to compare the expression profiles. In some embodiments, the deviation is the expression level of one or more targets from the sample is greater than the expression level of one or more targets from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals. In some embodiments, the deviation is the expression level of one or more targets from the sample is at least about 30% greater than the expression level of one or more targets from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals. In some embodiments, the deviation is the expression level of one or more targets from the sample is less than the expression level of one or more targets from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals. In some embodiments, the deviation is the expression level of one or more targets from the sample is at least about 30% less than the expression level of one or more targets from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals. In some embodiments, the method further comprises using a machine to isolate the target or the probe from the sample. In some embodiments, the method further comprises contacting the sample with a label that specifically binds to the target, the probe, or a combination thereof. In some embodiments, the method further comprises contacting the sample with a label that specifically binds to a target selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55, or a combination thereof. In some embodiments, the method further comprises amplifying the target, the probe, or any combination thereof. In some embodiments, the method further comprises sequencing the target, the probe, or any combination thereof. In some embodiments, obtaining the expression level may comprise the use of a classifier. The classifier may comprise a probe selection region (PSR). In some embodiments, the classifier may comprise the use of an algorithm. The algorithm may comprise a machine learning algorithm. In some embodiments, obtaining the expression level may also comprise sequencing the plurality of targets. In some embodiments, obtaining the expression level may also comprise amplifying the plurality of targets. In some embodiments, obtaining the expression level may also comprise quantifying the plurality of targets.
Further disclosed herein in some embodiments is a method of predicting an individual's response to a treatment regimen for a cancer, comprising (a) obtaining an expression profile from a sample obtained from the individual, wherein the expression profile comprises one or more targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55; (b) comparing the expression profile from the sample to an expression profile of a control or standard; and (c) predicting the individual's response to a treatment regimen based on (a) the deviation of the expression profile of the sample from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals, or (b) the similarity of the expression profiles of the sample and a control or standard derived from an individual or population of individuals who have or have had the cancer. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 5 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 10 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 15 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 20 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 30 targets selected from Tables 2, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 35 targets selected from Tables 2, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 40 targets selected from Tables 2, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the cancer is selected from the group consisting of a carcinoma, sarcoma, leukemia, lymphoma, myeloma, and a CNS tumor. In some embodiments, the cancer is selected from the group consisting of skin cancer, lung cancer, colon cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, liver cancer, thyroid cancer, ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer, kidney cancer, epithelial carcinoma, squamous carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, melanoma, papilloma, and adenomas. In some embodiments, the cancer is a prostate cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a pancreatic cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a breast cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a thyroid cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a lung cancer. In some embodiments, the method further comprises a software module executed by a computer-processing device to compare the expression profiles. In some embodiments, the deviation is the expression level of one or more targets from the sample is greater than the expression level of one or more targets from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals. In some embodiments, the deviation is the expression level of one or more targets from the sample is at least about 30% greater than the expression level of one or more targets from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals. In some embodiments, the deviation is the expression level of one or more targets from the sample is less than the expression level of one or more targets from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals. In some embodiments, the deviation is the expression level of one or more targets from the sample is at least about 30% less than the expression level of one or more targets from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals. In some embodiments, the method further comprises using a machine to isolate the target or the probe from the sample. In some embodiments, the method further comprises contacting the sample with a label that specifically binds to the target, the probe, or a combination thereof. In some embodiments, the method further comprises contacting the sample with a label that specifically binds to a target selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55, or a combination thereof. In some embodiments, the method further comprises amplifying the target, the probe, or any combination thereof. In some embodiments, the method further comprises sequencing the target, the probe, or any combination thereof. In some embodiments, the method further comprises quantifying the target, the probe, or any combination thereof. In some embodiments, the method further comprises labeling the target, the probe, or any combination thereof. In some embodiments, obtaining the expression level may comprise the use of a classifier. The classifier may comprise a probe selection region (PSR). In some embodiments, the classifier may comprise the use of an algorithm. The algorithm may comprise a machine learning algorithm. In some embodiments, obtaining the expression level may also comprise sequencing the plurality of targets. In some embodiments, obtaining the expression level may also comprise amplifying the plurality of targets. In some embodiments, obtaining the expression level may also comprise quantifying the plurality of targets.
Disclosed herein in some embodiments is a method of prescribing a treatment regimen for a cancer to an individual in need thereof, comprising (a) obtaining an expression profile from a sample obtained from the individual, wherein the expression profile comprises one or more targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55; (b) comparing the expression profile from the sample to an expression profile of a control or standard; and (c) prescribing a treatment regimen based on (i) the deviation of the expression profile of the sample from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals, or (ii) the similarity of the expression profiles of the sample and a control or standard derived from an individual or population of individuals who have or have had the cancer. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 5 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 10 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 15 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 20 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 30 targets selected from Tables 2, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 35 targets selected from Tables 2, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 40 targets selected from Tables 2, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the cancer is selected from the group consisting of a carcinoma, sarcoma, leukemia, lymphoma, myeloma, and a CNS tumor. In some embodiments, the cancer is selected from the group consisting of skin cancer, lung cancer, colon cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, liver cancer, thyroid cancer, ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer, kidney cancer, epithelial carcinoma, squamous carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, melanoma, papilloma, and adenomas. In some embodiments, the cancer is a prostate cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a pancreatic cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a breast cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a thyroid cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a lung cancer. In some embodiments, the method further comprises a software module executed by a computer-processing device to compare the expression profiles. In some embodiments, the deviation is the expression level of one or more targets from the sample is greater than the expression level of one or more targets from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals. In some embodiments, the deviation is the expression level of one or more targets from the sample is at least about 30% greater than the expression level of one or more targets from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals. In some embodiments, the deviation is the expression level of one or more targets from the sample is less than the expression level of one or more targets from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals. In some embodiments, the deviation is the expression level of one or more targets from the sample is at least about 30% less than the expression level of one or more targets from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals. In some embodiments, the method further comprises using a machine to isolate the target or the probe from the sample. In some embodiments, the method further comprises contacting the sample with a label that specifically binds to the target, the probe, or a combination thereof. In some embodiments, the method further comprises contacting the sample with a label that specifically binds to a target selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55, or a combination thereof. In some embodiments, the method further comprises amplifying the target, the probe, or any combination thereof. In some embodiments, the method further comprises sequencing the target, the probe, or any combination thereof. In some embodiments, the method further comprises converting the expression levels of the target sequences into a likelihood score that indicates the probability that a biological sample is from a patient who will exhibit no evidence of disease, who will exhibit systemic cancer, or who will exhibit biochemical recurrence. In some embodiments, the method further comprises quantifying the expression level of the plurality of targets. In some embodiments, the method further comprises labeling the plurality of targets. In some embodiments, the target sequences are differentially expressed the cancer. In some embodiments, the differential expression is dependent on aggressiveness. In some embodiments, the expression profile is determined by a method selected from the group consisting of RT-PCR, Northern blotting, ligase chain reaction, array hybridization, and a combination thereof. In some embodiments, obtaining the expression level may comprise the use of a classifier. The classifier may comprise a probe selection region (PSR). In some embodiments, the classifier may comprise the use of an algorithm. The algorithm may comprise a machine learning algorithm. In some embodiments, obtaining the expression level may also comprise sequencing the plurality of targets. In some embodiments, obtaining the expression level may also comprise amplifying the plurality of targets. In some embodiments, obtaining the expression level may also comprise quantifying the plurality of targets.
Further disclosed herein is a classifier for analyzing a cancer, wherein the classifier has an AUC value of at least about 0.60. The AUC of the classifier may be at least about 0.60, 0.61, 0.62, 0.63, 0.64, 0.65, 0.66, 0.67, 0.68, 0.69, 0.70 or more. The AUC of the classifier may be at least about 0.71, 0.72, 0.73, 0.74, 0.75, 0.76, 0.77, 0.78, 0.79, 0.80 or more. The AUC of the classifier may be at least about 0.81, 0.82, 0.83, 0.84, 0.85, 0.86, 0.87, 0.88, 0.89, 0.90 or more. The AUC of the classifier may be at least about 0.91, 0.92, 0.93, 0.94, 0.95, 0.96, 0.97, 0.98, 0.99 or more. The 95% CI of a classifier or biomarker may be between about 1.10 to 1.70. In some instances, the difference in the range of the 95% CI for a biomarker or classifier is between about 0.25 to about 0.50, between about 0.27 to about 0.47, or between about 0.30 to about 0.45.
Further disclosed herein is a method for analyzing a cancer, comprising use of one or more classifiers, wherein the significance of the one or more classifiers is based on one or more metrics selected from the group comprising AUC, AUC P-value (Auc.pvalue), Wilcoxon Test P-value, Median Fold Difference (MFD), Kaplan Meier (KM) curves, survival AUC (survAUC), Kaplan Meier P-value (KM P-value), Univariable Analysis Odds Ratio P-value (uvaORPval), multivariable analysis Odds Ratio P-value (mvaORPval), Univariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (uvaHRPval) and Multivariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (mvaHRPval). The significance of the one or more classifiers may be based on two or more metrics selected from the group comprising AUC, AUC P-value (Auc.pvalue), Wilcoxon Test P-value, Median Fold Difference (MFD), Kaplan Meier (KM) curves, survival AUC (survAUC), Univariable Analysis Odds Ratio P-value (uvaORPval), multivariable analysis Odds Ratio P-value (mvaORPval), Kaplan Meier P-value (KM P-value), Univariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (uvaHRPval) and Multivariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (mvaHRPval). The significance of the one or more classifiers may be based on three or more metrics selected from the group comprising AUC, AUC P-value (Auc.pvalue), Wilcoxon Test P-value, Median Fold Difference (MFD), Kaplan Meier (KM) curves, survival AUC (survAUC), Kaplan Meier P-value (KM P-value), Univariable Analysis Odds Ratio P-value (uvaORPval), multivariable analysis Odds Ratio P-value (mvaORPval), Univariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (uvaHRPval) and Multivariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (mvaHRPval).
The one or more metrics may comprise AUC. The one or more metrics may comprise AUC and AUC P-value. The one or more metrics may comprise AUC P-value and Wilcoxon Test P-value. The one or more metrics may comprise Wilcoxon Test P-value. The one or more metrics may comprise AUC and Univariable Analysis Odds Ratio P-value (uvaORPval). The one or more metrics may comprise multivariable analysis Odds Ratio P-value (mvaORPval) and Multivariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (mvaHRPval). The one or more metrics may comprise AUC and Multivariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (mvaHRPval). The one or more metrics may comprise Wilcoxon Test P-value and Multivariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (mvaHRPval).
The clinical significance of the classifier may be based on the AUC value. The AUC of the classifier may be at least about about 0.60, 0.61, 0.62, 0.63, 0.64, 0.65, 0.66, 0.67, 0.68, 0.69, 0.70 or more. The AUC of the classifier may be at least about 0.71, 0.72, 0.73, 0.74, 0.75, 0.76, 0.77, 0.78, 0.79, 0.80 or more. The AUC of the classifier may be at least about 0.81, 0.82, 0.83, 0.84, 0.85, 0.86, 0.87, 0.88, 0.89, 0.90 or more. The AUC of the classifier may be at least about 0.91, 0.92, 0.93, 0.94, 0.95, 0.96, 0.97, 0.98, 0.99 or more. The 95% CI of a classifier or biomarker may be between about 1.10 to 1.70. In some instances, the difference in the range of the 95% CI for a biomarker or classifier is between about 0.25 to about 0.50, between about 0.27 to about 0.47, or between about 0.30 to about 0.45.
The clinical significance of the classifier may be based on Univariable Analysis Odds Ratio P-value (uvaORPval). The Univariable Analysis Odds Ratio P-value (uvaORPval) of the classifier may be between about 0-0.4. The Univariable Analysis Odds Ratio P-value (uvaORPval) of the classifier may be between about 0-0.3. The Univariable Analysis Odds Ratio P-value (uvaORPval) of the classifier may be between about 0-0.2. The Univariable Analysis Odds Ratio P-value (uvaORPval) of the classifier may be less than or equal to 0.25, 0.22, 0.21, 0.20, 0.19, 0.18, 0.17, 0.16, 0.15, 0.14, 0.13, 0.12, 0.11. The Univariable Analysis Odds Ratio P-value (uvaORPval) of the classifier may be less than or equal to 0.10, 0.09, 0.08, 0.07, 0.06, 0.05, 0.04, 0.03, 0.02, 0.01. The Univariable Analysis Odds Ratio P-value (uvaORPval) of the classifier may be less than or equal to 0.009, 0.008, 0.007, 0.006, 0.005, 0.004, 0.003, 0.002, 0.001.
The clinical significance of the classifier may be based on multivariable analysis Odds Ratio P-value (mvaORPval). The multivariable analysis Odds Ratio P-value (mvaORPval) of the classifier may be between about 0-1. The multivariable analysis Odds Ratio P-value (mvaORPval) of the classifier may be between about 0-0.9. The multivariable analysis Odds Ratio P-value (mvaORPval) of the classifier may be between about 0-0.8. The multivariable analysis Odds Ratio P-value (mvaORPval) of the classifier may be less than or equal to 0.90, 0.88, 0.86, 0.84, 0.82, 0.80. The multivariable analysis Odds Ratio P-value (mvaORPval) of the classifier may be less than or equal to 0.78, 0.76, 0.74, 0.72, 0.70, 0.68, 0.66, 0.64, 0.62, 0.60, 0.58, 0.56, 0.54, 0.52, 0.50. The multivariable analysis Odds Ratio P-value (mvaORPval) of the classifier may be less than or equal to 0.48, 0.46, 0.44, 0.42, 0.40, 0.38, 0.36, 0.34, 0.32, 0.30, 0.28, 0.26, 0.25, 0.22, 0.21, 0.20, 0.19, 0.18, 0.17, 0.16, 0.15, 0.14, 0.13, 0.12, 0.11. The multivariable analysis Odds Ratio P-value (mvaORPval) of the classifier may be less than or equal to 0.10, 0.09, 0.08, 0.07, 0.06, 0.05, 0.04, 0.03, 0.02, 0.01. The multivariable analysis Odds Ratio P-value (mvaORPval) of the classifier may be less than or equal to 0.009, 0.008, 0.007, 0.006, 0.005, 0.004, 0.003, 0.002, 0.001.
The clinical significance of the classifier may be based on the Kaplan Meier P-value (KM P-value). The Kaplan Meier P-value (KM P-value) of the classifier may be between about 0-0.8. The Kaplan Meier P-value (KM P-value) of the classifier may be between about 0-0.7. The Kaplan Meier P-value (KM P-value) of the classifier may be less than or equal to 0.80, 0.78, 0.76, 0.74, 0.72, 0.70, 0.68, 0.66, 0.64, 0.62, 0.60, 0.58, 0.56, 0.54, 0.52, 0.50. The Kaplan Meier P-value (KM P-value) of the classifier may be less than or equal to 0.48, 0.46, 0.44, 0.42, 0.40, 0.38, 0.36, 0.34, 0.32, 0.30, 0.28, 0.26, 0.25, 0.22, 0.21, 0.20, 0.19, 0.18, 0.17, 0.16, 0.15, 0.14, 0.13, 0.12, 0.11. The Kaplan Meier P-value (KM P-value) of the classifier may be less than or equal to 0.10, 0.09, 0.08, 0.07, 0.06, 0.05, 0.04, 0.03, 0.02, 0.01. The Kaplan Meier P-value (KM P-value) of the classifier may be less than or equal to 0.009, 0.008, 0.007, 0.006, 0.005, 0.004, 0.003, 0.002, 0.001.
The clinical significance of the classifier may be based on the survival AUC value (survAUC). The survival AUC value (survAUC) of the classifier may be between about 0-1. The survival AUC value (survAUC) of the classifier may be between about 0-0.9. The survival AUC value (survAUC) of the classifier may be less than or equal to 1, 0.98, 0.96, 0.94, 0.92, 0.90, 0.88, 0.86, 0.84, 0.82, 0.80. The survival AUC value (survAUC) of the classifier may be less than or equal to 0.80, 0.78, 0.76, 0.74, 0.72, 0.70, 0.68, 0.66, 0.64, 0.62, 0.60, 0.58, 0.56, 0.54, 0.52, 0.50. The survival AUC value (survAUC) of the classifier may be less than or equal to 0.48, 0.46, 0.44, 0.42, 0.40, 0.38, 0.36, 0.34, 0.32, 0.30, 0.28, 0.26, 0.25, 0.22, 0.21, 0.20, 0.19, 0.18, 0.17, 0.16, 0.15, 0.14, 0.13, 0.12, 0.11. The survival AUC value (survAUC) of the classifier may be less than or equal to 0.10, 0.09, 0.08, 0.07, 0.06, 0.05, 0.04, 0.03, 0.02, 0.01. The survival AUC value (survAUC) of the classifier may be less than or equal to 0.009, 0.008, 0.007, 0.006, 0.005, 0.004, 0.003, 0.002, 0.001.
The clinical significance of the classifier may be based on the Univariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (uvaHRPval). The Univariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (uvaHRPval) of the classifier may be between about 0-0.4. The Univariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (uvaHRPval) of the classifier may be between about 0-0.3. The Univariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (uvaHRPval) of the classifier may be less than or equal to 0.40, 0.38, 0.36, 0.34, 0.32. The Univariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (uvaHRPval) of the classifier may be less than or equal to 0.30, 0.29, 0.28, 0.27, 0.26, 0.25, 0.24, 0.23, 0.22, 0.21, 0.20. The Univariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (uvaHRPval) of the classifier may be less than or equal to 0.19, 0.18, 0.17, 0.16, 0.15, 0.14, 0.13, 0.12, 0.11. The Univariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (uvaHRPval) of the classifier may be less than or equal to 0.10, 0.09, 0.08, 0.07, 0.06, 0.05, 0.04, 0.03, 0.02, 0.01. The Univariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (uvaHRPval) of the classifier may be less than or equal to 0.009, 0.008, 0.007, 0.006, 0.005, 0.004, 0.003, 0.002, 0.001.
The clinical significance of the classifier may be based on the Multivariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (mvaHRPval)mva HRPval. The Multivariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (mvaHRPval)mva HRPval of the classifier may be between about 0-1. The Multivariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (mvaHRPval)mva HRPval of the classifier may be between about 0-0.9. The Multivariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (mvaHRPval)mva HRPval of the classifier may be less than or equal to 1, 0.98, 0.96, 0.94, 0.92, 0.90, 0.88, 0.86, 0.84, 0.82, 0.80. The Multivariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (mvaHRPval)mva HRPval of the classifier may be less than or equal to 0.80, 0.78, 0.76, 0.74, 0.72, 0.70, 0.68, 0.66, 0.64, 0.62, 0.60, 0.58, 0.56, 0.54, 0.52, 0.50. The Multivariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (mvaHRPval)mva HRPval of the classifier may be less than or equal to 0.48, 0.46, 0.44, 0.42, 0.40, 0.38, 0.36, 0.34, 0.32, 0.30, 0.28, 0.26, 0.25, 0.22, 0.21, 0.20, 0.19, 0.18, 0.17, 0.16, 0.15, 0.14, 0.13, 0.12, 0.11. The Multivariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (mvaHRPval)mva HRPval of the classifier may be less than or equal to 0.10, 0.09, 0.08, 0.07, 0.06, 0.05, 0.04, 0.03, 0.02, 0.01. The Multivariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (mvaHRPval)mva HRPval of the classifier may be less than or equal to 0.009, 0.008, 0.007, 0.006, 0.005, 0.004, 0.003, 0.002, 0.001.
The clinical significance of the classifier may be based on the Multivariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (mvaHRPval). The Multivariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (mvaHRPval) of the classifier may be between about 0 to about 0.60. significance of the classifier may be based on the Multivariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (mvaHRPval). The Multivariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (mvaHRPval) of the classifier may be between about 0 to about 0.50. significance of the classifier may be based on the Multivariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (mvaHRPval). The Multivariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (mvaHRPval) of the classifier may be less than or equal to 0.50, 0.47, 0.45, 0.43, 0.40, 0.38, 0.35, 0.33, 0.30, 0.28, 0.25, 0.22, 0.20, 0.18, 0.16, 0.15, 0.14, 0.13, 0.12, 0.11, 0.10. The Multivariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (mvaHRPval) of the classifier may be less than or equal to 0.10, 0.09, 0.08, 0.07, 0.06, 0.05, 0.04, 0.03, 0.02, 0.01. The Multivariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (mvaHRPval) of the classifier may be less than or equal to 0.01, 0.009, 0.008, 0.007, 0.006, 0.005, 0.004, 0.003, 0.002, 0.001.
The method may further comprise determining an expression profile based on the one or more classifiers. The method may further comprise providing a sample from a subject. The subject may be a healthy subject. The subject may be suffering from a cancer or suspected of suffering from a cancer. The method may further comprise diagnosing a cancer in a subject based on the expression profile or classifier. The method may further comprise treating a cancer in a subject in need thereof based on the expression profile or classifier. The method may further comprise determining a treatment regimen for a cancer in a subject in need thereof based on the expression profile or classifier. The method may further comprise prognosing a cancer in a subject based on the expression profile or classifier.
Further disclosed herein is a kit for analyzing a cancer, comprising (a) a probe set comprising a plurality of target sequences, wherein the plurality of target sequences comprises at least one target sequence listed in Table 11; and (b) a computer model or algorithm for analyzing an expression level and/or expression profile of the target sequences in a sample. In some embodiments, the kit further comprises a computer model or algorithm for correlating the expression level or expression profile with disease state or outcome. In some embodiments, the kit further comprises a computer model or algorithm for designating a treatment modality for the individual. In some embodiments, the kit further comprises a computer model or algorithm for normalizing expression level or expression profile of the target sequences. In some embodiments, the kit further comprises a computer model or algorithm comprising a robust multichip average (RMA), probe logarithmic intensity error estimation (PLIER), non-linear fit (NLFIT) quantile-based, nonlinear normalization, or a combination thereof. In some embodiments, the plurality of target sequences comprises at least 5 target sequences selected from Table 11. In some embodiments, the plurality of target sequences comprises at least 10 target sequences selected from Table 11. In some embodiments, the plurality of target sequences comprises at least 15 target sequences selected from Table 11. In some embodiments, the plurality of target sequences comprises at least 20 target sequences selected from Table 11. In some embodiments, the plurality of target sequences comprises at least 30 target sequences selected from Table 11. In some embodiments, the plurality of target sequences comprises at least 35 target sequences selected from Table 11. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 40 target sequences selected from Table 11. In some embodiments, the cancer is selected from the group consisting of a carcinoma, sarcoma, leukemia, lymphoma, myeloma, and a CNS tumor. In some embodiments, the cancer is selected from the group consisting of skin cancer, lung cancer, colon cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, liver cancer, thyroid cancer, ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer, kidney cancer, epithelial carcinoma, squamous carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, melanoma, papilloma, and adenomas. In some embodiments, the cancer is a prostate cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a pancreatic cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a breast cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a thyroid cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a lung cancer.
Further disclosed herein is a kit for analyzing a cancer, comprising (a) a probe set comprising a plurality of target sequences, wherein the plurality of target sequences hybridizes to one or more targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55; and (b) a computer model or algorithm for analyzing an expression level and/or expression profile of the target sequences in a sample. In some embodiments, the kit further comprises a computer model or algorithm for correlating the expression level or expression profile with disease state or outcome. In some embodiments, the kit further comprises a computer model or algorithm for designating a treatment modality for the individual. In some embodiments, the kit further comprises a computer model or algorithm for normalizing expression level or expression profile of the target sequences. In some embodiments, the kit further comprises a computer model or algorithm comprising a robust multichip average (RMA), probe logarithmic intensity error estimation (PLIER), non-linear fit (NLFIT) quantile-based, nonlinear normalization, or a combination thereof. In some embodiments, the targets comprise at least 5 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the targets comprise at least 10 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the targets comprise at least 15 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the targets comprise at least 20 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the targets comprise at least 30 targets selected from Tables 2, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the targets comprise at least 35 targets selected from Tables 2, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the targets comprise comprises at least 40 targets selected from Tables 2, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the targets are selected from Table 2. In some embodiments, the targets are selected from Table 4. In some embodiments, the targets are selected from Table 11. In some embodiments, the cancer is selected from the group consisting of a carcinoma, sarcoma, leukemia, lymphoma, myeloma, and a CNS tumor. In some embodiments, the cancer is selected from the group consisting of skin cancer, lung cancer, colon cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, liver cancer, thyroid cancer, ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer, kidney cancer, epithelial carcinoma, squamous carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, melanoma, papilloma, and adenomas. In some embodiments, the cancer is a prostate cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a pancreatic cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a breast cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a thyroid cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a lung cancer.
All publications, patents, and patent applications mentioned in this specification are herein incorporated by reference in their entireties to the same extent as if each individual publication, patent, or patent application was specifically and individually indicated to be incorporated by reference.
Table 1. Clinical characteristics of Discovery and Validation data set
Table 2. 43-Biomarker Set. Chromosomal coordinates correspond to the hg19 version of the human genome.
Table 3. Gene Ontology Terms Enriched in the 43-Biomarker Signature
Table 4. 22-Biomarker Set. Chromosomal coordinates correspond to the hg19 version of the human genome.
Table 5. Comparison of Discrimination ability of classifiers in different datasets
Table 6. Reclassification of GPSM categories by GC.
Table 7. Univariable Analysis for panel of prognostic classifiers and clinicopathologic variables (for METS)
Table 8. Multivariable Cox regression analysis.
Table 9. Multivariable Analysis for panel of prognostic classifiers and clinicopathologic variables Adjusted for Hormone Therapy (for METS)
Table 10. Multivariable Analysis of GC compared to GPSM and CC (for METS)
Table 11. List of Target Sequences
Table 12. Univariable and Multivariable Logistic Regression Analysis in Testing Set
Table 13. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling comparing genomic classifier (GC) to clinicopathologic variables using different Gleason Score parameterization in the independent validation set.
Table 14. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models of GC with Stephenson Nomogram
Table 15. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling of decile risk groups of the genomic classifier (GC) after adjusting for treatment.
Table 16. Survival analysis of GC score risk groups (<0.4, 0.4-0.6, >0.6).
Table 17. Reclassification by GC of Gleason Risk categories among cases and controls in the testing set.
Table 18. Number of metastasis and PCSM events for different GC score risk groups among pathologic GS categories in the independent validation set.
Table 19. Number of patients at risk of developing PCSM at various time points after BCR
Table 20. Number of patients at risk of metastasis at various time points after BCR
Table 21. Clinical characteristics of the cohort in Example 9.
Table 22. Survival ROC AUCs and associated 95% confidence intervals for GC, CAPRA-S and other individual clinical variables.
Table 23. Reclassification of GC low risk (GC Score<0.4) and GC high risk (GC Score≥0.4) for CAPRA-S low, intermediate and high risk scores.
Table 24. Univariable and Multivariable Analysis for GC, CAPRA-S and individual clinical variables.
Table 25. Characteristics of urologists participating in study.
Table 26. Characteristics of patient cases.
Table 27. Probability of Changing Treatment Recommendation from Pre to Post GC test
Table 28. Change in treatment intensity by initial Perceived and GC risks.
Table 29. Detailed Overview of Probability of Changing Treatment Recommendation from Pre to Post GC test.
Table 30. Proportions of patients with treatment recommended.
Table 31. Urologist reported confidence in and influence on treatment recommendations.
Table 32. Breakdown of treatment recommendations pre and post-GC for Low and High GC Risk groups in the Adjuvant setting
Table 33. Clinical and pathologic characteristics of patient cohort.
Table 34. Number of patients at risk of developing metastasis at various time points after BCR.
Table 35. Number of patients at risk of developing metastasis at various time points after BCR.
Table 36. Number of patients at risk of developing metastasis at various time points after BCR.
Table 37. Survival Analysis for GC and clinicopathologic factors. Multivariable analysis is adjusted for adjuvant treatment, GC reported for 10% unit increase.
Table 38. Survival Analysis for GC, Stephenson and CAPRA-S. Multivariable analyses are adjusted for adjuvant treatment, GC and Stephenson reported for 10% unit increase.
Table 39: biomarkers from the 43 biomarker panel with significance for Wilcoxon P-value (auc.pvalue) and other metrics for the BCR event endpoint.
Table 40: biomarkers from the 43 biomarker panel with significance for Wilcoxon P-value (auc.pvalue) and other metrics for the ECE endpoint.
Table 41: biomarkers from the 43 biomarker panel with significance for Wilcoxon P-value (auc.pvalue) and other metrics for the LCR event endpoint.
Table 42: biomarkers from the 43 biomarker panel with significance for Wilcoxon P-value (auc.pvalue) and other metrics for the LNI endpoint.
Table 43: biomarkers from the 43 biomarker panel with significance for Wilcoxon P-value (auc.pvalue) and other metrics for the MET event endpoint.
Table 44: biomarkers from the 43 biomarker panel with significance for Wilcoxon P-value (auc.pvalue) and other metrics for the OS event endpoint.
Table 45: biomarkers from the 43 biomarker panel with significance for Wilcoxon P-value (auc.pvalue) and other metrics for the pathological Gleason endpoint.
Table 46: biomarkers from the 43 biomarker panel with significance for Wilcoxon P-value (auc.pvalue) and other metrics for the PCSM event endpoint.
Table 47: biomarkers from the 43 biomarker panel with significance for Wilcoxon P-value (auc.pvalue) and other metrics for the psaDT endpoint.
Table 48: biomarkers from the 43 biomarker panel with significance for Wilcoxon P-value (auc.pvalue) and other metrics for the SVI endpoint.
Table 49: pairwise biomarkers from the 43 biomarker panel with significance for Wilcoxon P-value (auc.pvalue<=0.05) and other metrics for the BCR event endpoint.
Table 50: pairwise biomarkers from the 43 biomarker panel with significance for Wilcoxon P-value (auc.pvalue<=0.001) and other metrics for the MET event endpoint.
Table 51: pairwise biomarkers from the 43 biomarker panel with significance for Wilcoxon P-value (auc.pvalue<=0.05) and other metrics for the PCSM event endpoint.
Table 52: pairwise biomarkers from the 43 biomarker panel with significance for Wilcoxon P-value (auc.pvalue<=0.05) and other metrics for the psaDT endpoint.
Table 53: biomarkers from the 2,040 biomarker library with significance for Wilcoxon P-value (auc.pvalue<=0.05) and other metrics for the BCR event endpoint.
Table 54: biomarkers from the 2,040 biomarker library with significance for Wilcoxon P-value (auc.pvalue<=0.05) and other metrics for the MET event endpoint.
Table 55: 2,040 biomarker library. For each feature, genomic category, associated Affymetrix probeset ID, Associated Gene, Kolmogorov Smirnov Test P-value demonstrating statistical significance at 0.05 level is shown, together with Mean Decrease in Gini and Mean Decrease in Accuracy.
The present invention discloses systems and methods for diagnosing, predicting, and/or monitoring the status or outcome of a cancer in a subject using expression-based analysis of a plurality of targets. Generally, the method comprises (a) optionally providing a sample from a subject suffering from a cancer; (b) assaying the expression level for a plurality of targets in the sample; and (c) diagnosing, predicting and/or monitoring the status or outcome of the cancer based on the expression level of the plurality of targets.
Assaying the expression level for a plurality of targets in the sample may comprise applying the sample to a microarray. In some instances, assaying the expression level may comprise the use of an algorithm. The algorithm may be used to produce a classifier. Alternatively, the classifier may comprise a probe selection region. In some instances, assaying the expression level for a plurality of targets comprises detecting and/or quantifying the plurality of targets. In some embodiments, assaying the expression level for a plurality of targets comprises sequencing the plurality of targets. In some embodiments, assaying the expression level for a plurality of targets comprises amplifying the plurality of targets. In some embodiments, assaying the expression level for a plurality of targets comprises quantifying the plurality of targets. In some embodiments, assaying the expression level for a plurality of targets comprises conducting a multiplexed reaction on the plurality of targets.
In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises one or more targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises at least about 2, at least about 3, at least about 4, at least about 5, at least about 6, at least about 7, at least about 8, at least about 9, or at least about 10 targets selected from Table 2, 4, and 11. In other instances, the plurality of targets comprises at least about 12, at least about 15, at least about 17, at least about 20, at least about 22, at least about 25, at least about 27, at least about 30, at least about 32, at least about 35, at least about 37, or at least about 40 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some instances, the targets are selected from Table 2. In some instances, the targets are selected from Table 4. In some instances, the targets are selected from Table 11. In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises a coding target, non-coding target, or any combination thereof. In some instances, the coding target comprises an exonic sequence. In other instances, the non-coding target comprises a non-exonic sequence. In some instances, the non-exonic sequence comprises an untranslated region (e.g., UTR), intronic region, intergenic region, or any combination thereof. Alternatively, the plurality of targets comprises an anti-sense sequence. In other instances, the plurality of targets comprises a non-coding RNA transcript.
Further disclosed herein, is a probe set for diagnosing, predicting, and/or monitoring a cancer in a subject. In some instances, the probe set comprises a plurality of probes capable of detecting an expression level of one or more targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55, wherein the expression level determines the cancer status of the subject with at least about 45% specificity. In some instances, detecting an expression level comprise detecting gene expression, protein expression, or any combination thereof. In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises one or more targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises at least about 2, at least about 3, at least about 4, at least about 5, at least about 6, at least about 7, at least about 8, at least about 9, or at least about 10 targets selected from Table 2, 4, and 11. In other instances, the plurality of targets comprises at least about 12, at least about 15, at least about 17, at least about 20, at least about 22, at least about 25, at least about 27, at least about 30, at least about 32, at least about 35, at least about 37, or at least about 40 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some instances, the targets are selected from Table 2. In some instances, the targets are selected from Table 4. In some instances, the targets are selected from Table 11. In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises a coding target, non-coding target, or any combination thereof. In some instances, the coding target comprises an exonic sequence. In other instances, the non-coding target comprises a non-exonic sequence. In some instances, the non-exonic sequence comprises an untranslated region (e.g., UTR), intronic region, intergenic region, or any combination thereof. Alternatively, the plurality of targets comprises an anti-sense sequence. In other instances, the plurality of targets comprises a non-coding RNA transcript.
Further disclosed herein are methods for characterizing a patient population. Generally, the method comprises: (a) providing a sample from a subject; (b) assaying the expression level for a plurality of targets in the sample; and (c) characterizing the subject based on the expression level of the plurality of targets. In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises one or more targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises at least about 2, at least about 3, at least about 4, at least about 5, at least about 6, at least about 7, at least about 8, at least about 9, or at least about 10 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In other instances, the plurality of targets comprises at least about 12, at least about 15, at least about 17, at least about 20, at least about 22, at least about 25, at least about 27, at least about 30, at least about 32, at least about 35, at least about 37, or at least about 40 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some instances, the targets are selected from Table 2. In some instances, the targets are selected from Table 4. In some instances, the targets are selected from Table 11. In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises a coding target, non-coding target, or any combination thereof. In some instances, the coding target comprises an exonic sequence. In other instances, the non-coding target comprises a non-exonic sequence. In some instances, the non-exonic sequence comprises an untranslated region (e.g., UTR), intronic region, intergenic region, or any combination thereof. Alternatively, the plurality of targets comprises an anti-sense sequence. In other instances, the plurality of targets comprises a non-coding RNA transcript.
In some instances, characterizing the subject comprises determining whether the subject would respond to an anti-cancer therapy. Alternatively, characterizing the subject comprises identifying the subject as a non-responder to an anti-cancer therapy. Optionally, characterizing the subject comprises identifying the subject as a responder to an anti-cancer therapy.
Before the present invention is described in further detail, it is to be understood that this invention is not limited to the particular methodology, compositions, articles or machines described, as such methods, compositions, articles or machines can, of course, vary. It is also to be understood that the terminology used herein is for the purpose of describing particular embodiments only, and is not intended to limit the scope of the present invention.
Unless defined otherwise or the context clearly dictates otherwise, all technical and scientific terms used herein have the same meaning as commonly understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to which this invention belongs. In describing the present invention, the following terms may be employed, and are intended to be defined as indicated below.
The term “polynucleotide” as used herein refers to a polymer of greater than one nucleotide in length of ribonucleic acid (RNA), deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), hybrid RNA/DNA, modified RNA or DNA, or RNA or DNA mimetics, including peptide nucleic acids (PNAs). The polynucleotides may be single- or double-stranded. The term includes polynucleotides composed of naturally-occurring nucleobases, sugars and covalent internucleoside (backbone) linkages as well as polynucleotides having non-naturally-occurring portions which function similarly. Such modified or substituted polynucleotides are well known in the art and for the purposes of the present invention, are referred to as “analogues.”
“Complementary” or “substantially complementary” refers to the ability to hybridize or base pair between nucleotides or nucleic acids, such as, for instance, between a sensor peptide nucleic acid or polynucleotide and a target polynucleotide. Complementary nucleotides are, generally, A and T (or A and U), or C and G. Two single-stranded polynucleotides or PNAs are said to be substantially complementary when the bases of one strand, optimally aligned and compared and with appropriate insertions or deletions, pair with at least about 80% of the bases of the other strand, usually at least about 90% to 95%, and more preferably from about 98 to 100%.
Alternatively, substantial complementarity exists when a polynucleotide may hybridize under selective hybridization conditions to its complement. Typically, selective hybridization may occur when there is at least about 65% complementarity over a stretch of at least 14 to 25 bases, for example at least about 75%, or at least about 90% complementarity.
“Preferential binding” or “preferential hybridization” refers to the increased propensity of one polynucleotide to bind to its complement in a sample as compared to a noncomplementary polymer in the sample.
Hybridization conditions may typically include salt concentrations of less than about 1M, more usually less than about 500 mM, for example less than about 200 mM. In the case of hybridization between a peptide nucleic acid and a polynucleotide, the hybridization can be done in solutions containing little or no salt. Hybridization temperatures can be as low as 5° C., but are typically greater than 22° C., and more typically greater than about 30° C., for example in excess of about 37° C. Longer fragments may require higher hybridization temperatures for specific hybridization as is known in the art. Other factors may affect the stringency of hybridization, including base composition and length of the complementary strands, presence of organic solvents and extent of base mismatching, and the combination of parameters used is more important than the absolute measure of any one alone. Other hybridization conditions which may be controlled include buffer type and concentration, solution pH, presence and concentration of blocking reagents to decrease background binding such as repeat sequences or blocking protein solutions, detergent type(s) and concentrations, molecules such as polymers which increase the relative concentration of the polynucleotides, metal ion(s) and their concentration(s), chelator(s) and their concentrations, and other conditions known in the art.
“Multiplexing” herein refers to an assay or other analytical method in which multiple analytes are assayed. In some instances, the multiple analytes are from the same sample. In some instances, the multiple analytes are assayed simultaneously. Alternatively, the multiple analytes are assayed sequentially. In some instances, assaying the multiple analytes occurs in the same reaction volume. Alternatively, assaying the multiple analytes occurs in separate or multiple reaction volumes.
A “target sequence” as used herein (also occasionally referred to as a “PSR” or “probe selection region”) refers to a region of the genome against which one or more probes can be designed. A “target sequence” may be a coding target or a non-coding target. A “target sequence” may comprise exonic and/or non-exonic sequences. Alternatively, a “target sequence” may comprise an ultraconserved region. An ultraconserved region is generally a sequence that is at least 200 base pairs and is conserved across multiple species. An ultraconserved region may be exonic or non-exonic. Exonic sequences may comprise regions on a protein-coding gene, such as an exon, UTR, or a portion thereof. Non-exonic sequences may comprise regions on a protein-coding, non protein-coding gene, or a portion thereof. For example, non-exonic sequences may comprise intronic regions, promoter regions, intergenic regions, a non-coding transcript, an exon anti-sense region, an intronic anti-sense region, UTR anti-sense region, non-coding transcript anti-sense region, or a portion thereof.
As used herein, a probe is any polynucleotide capable of selectively hybridizing to a target sequence or its complement, or to an RNA version of either. A probe may comprise ribonucleotides, deoxyribonucleotides, peptide nucleic acids, and combinations thereof. A probe may optionally comprise one or more labels. In some embodiments, a probe may be used to amplify one or both strands of a target sequence or an RNA form thereof, acting as a sole primer in an amplification reaction or as a member of a set of primers.
As used herein, a non-coding target may comprise a nucleotide sequence. The nucleotide sequence is a DNA or RNA sequence. A non-coding target may include a UTR sequence, an intronic sequence, or a non-coding RNA transcript. A non-coding target also includes sequences which partially overlap with a UTR sequence or an intronic sequence. A non-coding target also includes non-exonic transcripts.
As used herein, a coding target includes nucleotide sequences that encode for a protein and peptide sequences. The nucleotide sequence is a DNA or RNA sequence. The coding target includes protein-coding sequence. Protein-coding sequences include exon-coding sequences (e.g., exonic sequences).
As used herein, diagnosis of cancer may include the identification of cancer in a subject, determining the malignancy of the cancer, or determining the stage of the cancer.
As used herein, prognosis of cancer may include predicting the clinical outcome of the patient, assessing the risk of cancer recurrence, determining treatment modality, or determining treatment efficacy.
“Having” is an open-ended phrase like “comprising” and “including,” and includes circumstances where additional elements are included and circumstances where they are not
“Optional” or “optionally” means that the subsequently described event or circumstance may or may not occur, and that the description includes instances where the event or circumstance occurs and instances in which it does not.
As used herein ‘NED’ describes a clinically distinct disease state in which patients show no evidence of disease (NED’) at least 5 years after surgery, ‘PSA’ describes a clinically distinct disease state in which patients show biochemical relapse only (two successive increases in prostate-specific antigen levels but no other symptoms of disease with at least 5 years follow up after surgery; TSA′) and ‘SYS’ describes a clinically distinct disease state in which patients develop biochemical relapse and present with systemic cancer disease or metastases (‘SYS’) within five years after the initial treatment with radical prostatectomy.
The terms “METS”, “SYS”, “systemic event”, “Systemic progression”, “CR” or “Clinical Recurrence” may be used interchangeably and generally refer to patients that experience BCR (biochemical reccurrence) and that develop metastases (confirmed by bone or CT scan). The patients may experience BCR within 5 years of RP (radial prostectomy). The patients may develop metastases within 5 years of BCR. In some cases, patients regarded as METS may experience BCR after 5 years of RP.
As used herein, the term “about” refers to approximately a +/−10% variation from a given value. It is to be understood that such a variation is always included in any given value provided herein, whether or not it is specifically referred to.
Use of the singular forms “a,” “an,” and “the” include plural references unless the context clearly dictates otherwise. Thus, for example, reference to “a polynucleotide” includes a plurality of polynucleotides, reference to “a target” includes a plurality of such targets, reference to “a normalization method” includes a plurality of such methods, and the like. Additionally, use of specific plural references, such as “two,” “three,” etc., read on larger numbers of the same subject, unless the context clearly dictates otherwise.
Terms such as “connected,” “attached,” “linked” and “conjugated” are used interchangeably herein and encompass direct as well as indirect connection, attachment, linkage or conjugation unless the context clearly dictates otherwise.
Where a range of values is recited, it is to be understood that each intervening integer value, and each fraction thereof, between the recited upper and lower limits of that range is also specifically disclosed, along with each subrange between such values. The upper and lower limits of any range can independently be included in or excluded from the range, and each range where either, neither or both limits are included is also encompassed within the invention. Where a value being discussed has inherent limits, for example where a component can be present at a concentration of from 0 to 100%, or where the pH of an aqueous solution can range from 1 to 14, those inherent limits are specifically disclosed. Where a value is explicitly recited, it is to be understood that values, which are about the same quantity or amount as the recited value, are also within the scope of the invention, as are ranges based thereon. Where a combination is disclosed, each sub-combination of the elements of that combination is also specifically disclosed and is within the scope of the invention. Conversely, where different elements or groups of elements are disclosed, combinations thereof are also disclosed. Where any element of an invention is disclosed as having a plurality of alternatives, examples of that invention in which each alternative is excluded singly or in any combination with the other alternatives are also hereby disclosed; more than one element of an invention can have such exclusions, and all combinations of elements having such exclusions are hereby disclosed.
Coding and Non-Coding Targets
The methods disclosed herein often comprise assaying the expression level of a plurality of targets. The plurality of targets may comprise coding targets and/or non-coding targets of a protein-coding gene or a non protein-coding gene. A protein-coding gene structure may comprise an exon and an intron. The exon may further comprise a coding sequence (CDS) and an untranslated region (UTR). The protein-coding gene may be transcribed to produce a pre-mRNA and the pre-mRNA may be processed to produce a mature mRNA. The mature mRNA may be translated to produce a protein.
A non protein-coding gene structure may comprise an exon and intron. Usually, the exon region of a non protein-coding gene primarily contains a UTR. The non protein-coding gene may be transcribed to produce a pre-mRNA and the pre-mRNA may be processed to produce a non-coding RNA (ncRNA).
A coding target may comprise a coding sequence of an exon. A non-coding target may comprise a UTR sequence of an exon, intron sequence, intergenic sequence, promoter sequence, non-coding transcript, CDS antisense, intronic antisense, UTR antisense, or non-coding transcript antisense. A non-coding transcript may comprise a non-coding RNA (ncRNA).
In some instances, the plurality of targets may be differentially expressed. In some instances, a plurality of probe selection regions (PSRs) is differentially expressed.
In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises one or more targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises at least about 2, at least about 3, at least about 4, at least about 5, at least about 6, at least about 7, at least about 8, at least about 9, or at least about 10 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In other instances, the plurality of targets comprises at least about 12, at least about 15, at least about 17, at least about 20, at least about 22, at least about 25, at least about 27, at least about 30, at least about 32, at least about 35, at least about 37, or at least about 40 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some instances, the targets are selected from Table 2. In some instances, the targets are selected from Table 4. In some instances, the targets are selected from Table 11. In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises a coding target, non-coding target, or any combination thereof. In some instances, the coding target comprises an exonic sequence. In other instances, the non-coding target comprises a non-exonic sequence. Alternatively, a non-coding target comprises a UTR sequence, an intronic sequence, or a non-coding RNA transcript. In some instances, a non-coding target comprises sequences which partially overlap with a UTR sequence or an intronic sequence. A non-coding target also includes non-exonic transcripts. Exonic sequences may comprise regions on a protein-coding gene, such as an exon, UTR, or a portion thereof. Non-exonic sequences may comprise regions on a protein-coding, non protein-coding gene, or a portion thereof. For example, non-exonic sequences may comprise intronic regions, promoter regions, intergenic regions, a non-coding transcript, an exon anti-sense region, an intronic anti-sense region, UTR anti-sense region, non-coding transcript anti-sense region, or a portion thereof. In other instances, the plurality of targets comprises a non-coding RNA transcript.
In some instances, the plurality of targets is at least about 70% identical to a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs 1-43. Alternatively, the plurality of targets is at least about 80% identical to a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs 1-43. In some instances, the plurality of targets is at least about 85% identical to a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs 1-43. In some instances, the plurality of targets is at least about 90% identical to a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs 1-43. Alternatively, the plurality of targets is at least about 95% identical to a sequence selected from SEQ ID NOs 1-43.
Probes/Primers
The present invention provides for a probe set for diagnosing, monitoring and/or predicting a status or outcome of a cancer in a subject comprising a plurality of probes, wherein (i) the probes in the set are capable of detecting an expression level of at least one non-coding target; and (ii) the expression level determines the cancer status of the subject with at least about 40% specificity.
The probe set may comprise one or more polynucleotide probes. Individual polynucleotide probes comprise a nucleotide sequence derived from the nucleotide sequence of the target sequences or complementary sequences thereof. The nucleotide sequence of the polynucleotide probe is designed such that it corresponds to, or is complementary to the target sequences. The polynucleotide probe can specifically hybridize under either stringent or lowered stringency hybridization conditions to a region of the target sequences, to the complement thereof, or to a nucleic acid sequence (such as a cDNA) derived therefrom.
The selection of the polynucleotide probe sequences and determination of their uniqueness may be carried out in silico using techniques known in the art, for example, based on a BLASTN search of the polynucleotide sequence in question against gene sequence databases, such as the Human Genome Sequence, UniGene, dbEST or the non-redundant database at NCBI. In one embodiment of the invention, the polynucleotide probe is complementary to a region of a target mRNA derived from a target sequence in the probe set. Computer programs can also be employed to select probe sequences that may not cross hybridize or may not hybridize non-specifically.
In some instances, microarray hybridization of RNA, extracted from prostate cancer tissue samples and amplified, may yield a dataset that is then summarized and normalized by the fRMA technique. The 5,362,207 raw expression probes are summarized and normalized into 1,411,399 probe selection regions (“PSRs”). After removal (or filtration) of cross-hybridizing PSRs, highly variable PSRs (variance above the 90th percentile), and PSRs containing more than 4 probes, approximately 1.1 million PSRs remain. Following fRMA and filtration, the data can be decomposed into its principal components and an analysis of variance model is used to determine the extent to which a batch effect remains present in the first 10 principal components.
These remaining 1.1 million PSRs can then be subjected to filtration by a T-test between CR (clinical recurrence) and non-CR samples. Using a p-value cut-off of 0.01, 18,902 features remained in analysis for further selection. Feature selection was performed by regularized logistic regression using the elastic-net penalty. The regularized regression was bootstrapped over 1000 times using all training data; with each iteration of bootstrapping features that have non-zero co-efficient following 3-fold cross validation were tabulated. In some instances, features that were selected in at least 25% of the total runs were used for model building.
One skilled in the art understands that the nucleotide sequence of the polynucleotide probe need not be identical to its target sequence in order to specifically hybridize thereto. The polynucleotide probes of the present invention, therefore, comprise a nucleotide sequence that is at least about 65% identical to a region of the coding target or non-coding target selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In another embodiment, the nucleotide sequence of the polynucleotide probe is at least about 70% identical a region of the coding target or non-coding target from Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In another embodiment, the nucleotide sequence of the polynucleotide probe is at least about 75% identical a region of the coding target or non-coding target from Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In another embodiment, the nucleotide sequence of the polynucleotide probe is at least about 80% identical a region of the coding target or non-coding target from Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In another embodiment, the nucleotide sequence of the polynucleotide probe is at least about 85% identical a region of the coding target or non-coding target from Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In another embodiment, the nucleotide sequence of the polynucleotide probe is at least about 90% identical a region of the coding target or non-coding target from Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In a further embodiment, the nucleotide sequence of the polynucleotide probe is at least about 95% identical to a region of the coding target or non-coding target from Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some instances, the targets are selected from Table 2. In some instances, the targets are selected from Table 4. In some instances, the targets are selected from Table 11.
Methods of determining sequence identity are known in the art and can be determined, for example, by using the BLASTN program of the University of Wisconsin Computer Group (GCG) software or provided on the NCBI website. The nucleotide sequence of the polynucleotide probes of the present invention may exhibit variability by differing (e.g. by nucleotide substitution, including transition or transversion) at one, two, three, four or more nucleotides from the sequence of the coding target or non-coding target.
Other criteria known in the art may be employed in the design of the polynucleotide probes of the present invention. For example, the probes can be designed to have <50% G content and/or between about 25% and about 70% G+C content. Strategies to optimize probe hybridization to the target nucleic acid sequence can also be included in the process of probe selection.
Hybridization under particular pH, salt, and temperature conditions can be optimized by taking into account melting temperatures and by using empirical rules that correlate with desired hybridization behaviors. Computer models may be used for predicting the intensity and concentration-dependence of probe hybridization.
The polynucleotide probes of the present invention may range in length from about 15 nucleotides to the full length of the coding target or non-coding target. In one embodiment of the invention, the polynucleotide probes are at least about 15 nucleotides in length. In another embodiment, the polynucleotide probes are at least about 20 nucleotides in length. In a further embodiment, the polynucleotide probes are at least about 25 nucleotides in length. In another embodiment, the polynucleotide probes are between about 15 nucleotides and about 500 nucleotides in length. In other embodiments, the polynucleotide probes are between about 15 nucleotides and about 450 nucleotides, about 15 nucleotides and about 400 nucleotides, about 15 nucleotides and about 350 nucleotides, about 15 nucleotides and about 300 nucleotides, about 15 nucleotides and about 250 nucleotides, about 15 nucleotides and about 200 nucleotides in length. In some embodiments, the probes are at least 15 nucleotides in length. In some embodiments, the probes are at least 15 nucleotides in length. In some embodiments, the probes are at least 20 nucleotides, at least 25 nucleotides, at least 50 nucleotides, at least 75 nucleotides, at least 100 nucleotides, at least 125 nucleotides, at least 150 nucleotides, at least 200 nucleotides, at least 225 nucleotides, at least 250 nucleotides, at least 275 nucleotides, at least 300 nucleotides, at least 325 nucleotides, at least 350 nucleotides, at least 375 nucleotides in length.
The polynucleotide probes of a probe set can comprise RNA, DNA, RNA or DNA mimetics, or combinations thereof, and can be single-stranded or double-stranded. Thus the polynucleotide probes can be composed of naturally-occurring nucleobases, sugars and covalent internucleoside (backbone) linkages as well as polynucleotide probes having non-naturally-occurring portions which function similarly. Such modified or substituted polynucleotide probes may provide desirable properties such as, for example, enhanced affinity for a target gene and increased stability. The probe set may comprise a coding target and/or a non-coding target. Preferably, the probe set comprises a combination of a coding target and non-coding target.
In some embodiments, the probe set comprise a plurality of target sequences that hybridize to at least about 5 coding targets and/or non-coding targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. Alternatively, the probe set comprise a plurality of target sequences that hybridize to at least about 10 coding targets and/or non-coding targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the probe set comprise a plurality of target sequences that hybridize to at least about 15 coding targets and/or non-coding targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the probe set comprise a plurality of target sequences that hybridize to at least about 20 coding targets and/or non-coding targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the probe set comprise a plurality of target sequences that hybridize to at least about 30 coding targets and/or non-coding targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some instances, the targets are selected from Table 2. In some instances, the targets are selected from Table 4. In some instances, the targets are selected from Table 11.
In some embodiments, the probe set comprises a plurality of target sequences that hybridize to a plurality of targets, wherein the at least about 20% of the plurality of targets are targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the probe set comprises a plurality of target sequences that hybridize to a plurality of targets, wherein the at least about 25% of the plurality of targets are targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the probe set comprise a plurality of target sequences that hybridize to a plurality of targets, wherein the at least about 30% of the plurality of targets are targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the probe set comprise a plurality of target sequences that hybridize to a plurality of targets, wherein the at least about 35% of the plurality of targets are targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the probe set comprise a plurality of target sequences that hybridize to a plurality of targets, wherein the at least about 40% of the plurality of targets are targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the probe set comprise a plurality of target sequences that hybridize to a plurality of targets, wherein the at least about 45% of the plurality of targets are targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the probe set comprise a plurality of target sequences that hybridize to a plurality of targets, wherein the at least about 50% of the plurality of targets are targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the probe set comprise a plurality of target sequences that hybridize to a plurality of targets, wherein the at least about 60% of the plurality of targets are targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the probe set comprise a plurality of target sequences that hybridize to a plurality of targets, wherein the at least about 70% of the plurality of targets are targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some instances, the targets are selected from Table 2. In some instances, the targets are selected from Table 4. In some instances, the targets are selected from Table 11.
The system of the present invention further provides for primers and primer pairs capable of amplifying target sequences defined by the probe set, or fragments or subsequences or complements thereof. The nucleotide sequences of the probe set may be provided in computer-readable media for in silico applications and as a basis for the design of appropriate primers for amplification of one or more target sequences of the probe set.
Primers based on the nucleotide sequences of target sequences can be designed for use in amplification of the target sequences. For use in amplification reactions such as PCR, a pair of primers can be used. The exact composition of the primer sequences is not critical to the invention, but for most applications the primers may hybridize to specific sequences of the probe set under stringent conditions, particularly under conditions of high stringency, as known in the art. The pairs of primers are usually chosen so as to generate an amplification product of at least about 50 nucleotides, more usually at least about 100 nucleotides. Algorithms for the selection of primer sequences are generally known, and are available in commercial software packages. These primers may be used in standard quantitative or qualitative PCR-based assays to assess transcript expression levels of RNAs defined by the probe set. Alternatively, these primers may be used in combination with probes, such as molecular beacons in amplifications using real-time PCR.
In one embodiment, the primers or primer pairs, when used in an amplification reaction, specifically amplify at least a portion of a nucleic acid sequence of a target selected from any of Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55 (or subgroups thereof as set forth herein), an RNA form thereof, or a complement to either thereof. In some instances, the targets are selected from Table 2. In some instances, the targets are selected from Table 4. In some instances, the targets are selected from Table 11.
As is known in the art, a nucleoside is a base-sugar combination and a nucleotide is a nucleoside that further includes a phosphate group covalently linked to the sugar portion of the nucleoside. In forming oligonucleotides, the phosphate groups covalently link adjacent nucleosides to one another to form a linear polymeric compound, with the normal linkage or backbone of RNA and DNA being a 3′ to 5′ phosphodiester linkage. Specific examples of polynucleotide probes or primers useful in this invention include oligonucleotides containing modified backbones or non-natural internucleoside linkages. As defined in this specification, oligonucleotides having modified backbones include both those that retain a phosphorus atom in the backbone and those that lack a phosphorus atom in the backbone. For the purposes of the present invention, and as sometimes referenced in the art, modified oligonucleotides that do not have a phosphorus atom in their internucleoside backbone can also be considered to be oligonucleotides.
Exemplary polynucleotide probes or primers having modified oligonucleotide backbones include, for example, those with one or more modified internucleotide linkages that are phosphorothioates, chiral phosphorothioates, phosphorodithioates, phosphotriesters, aminoalkylphosphotriesters, methyl and other alkyl phosphonates including 3′-alkylene phosphonates and chiral phosphonates, phosphinates, phosphoramidates including 3′amino phosphoramidate and aminoalkylphosphoramidates, thionophosphoramidates, thionoalkyl-phosphonates, thionoalkylphosphotriesters, and boranophosphates having normal 3′-5′ linkages, 2′-5′ linked analogs of these, and those having inverted polarity wherein the adjacent pairs of nucleoside units are linked 3′-5′ to 5′-3′ or 2′-5′ to 5′-2′. Various salts, mixed salts and free acid forms are also included.
Exemplary modified oligonucleotide backbones that do not include a phosphorus atom are formed by short chain alkyl or cycloalkyl internucleoside linkages, mixed heteroatom and alkyl or cycloalkyl internucleoside linkages, or one or more short chain heteroatomic or heterocyclic internucleoside linkages. Such backbones include morpholino linkages (formed in part from the sugar portion of a nucleoside); siloxane backbones; sulfide, sulfoxide and sulphone backbones; formacetyl and thioformacetyl backbones; methylene formacetyl and thioformacetyl backbones; alkene containing backbones; sulphamate backbones; methyleneimino and methylenehydrazino backbones; sulphonate and sulfonamide backbones; amide backbones; and others having mixed N, O, S and CH2 component parts.
The present invention also contemplates oligonucleotide mimetics in which both the sugar and the internucleoside linkage of the nucleotide units are replaced with novel groups. The base units are maintained for hybridization with an appropriate nucleic acid target compound. An example of such an oligonucleotide mimetic, which has been shown to have excellent hybridization properties, is a peptide nucleic acid (PNA). In PNA compounds, the sugar-backbone of an oligonucleotide is replaced with an amide containing backbone, in particular an aminoethylglycine backbone. The nucleobases are retained and are bound directly or indirectly to aza-nitrogen atoms of the amide portion of the backbone.
The present invention also contemplates polynucleotide probes or primers comprising “locked nucleic acids” (LNAs), which may be novel conformationally restricted oligonucleotide analogues containing a methylene bridge that connects the 2′-O of ribose with the 4′-C. LNA and LNA analogues may display very high duplex thermal stabilities with complementary DNA and RNA, stability towards 3′-exonuclease degradation, and good solubility properties. Synthesis of the LNA analogues of adenine, cytosine, guanine, 5-methylcytosine, thymine and uracil, their oligomerization, and nucleic acid recognition properties have been described. Studies of mismatched sequences show that LNA obey the Watson-Crick base pairing rules with generally improved selectivity compared to the corresponding unmodified reference strands.
LNAs may form duplexes with complementary DNA or RNA or with complementary LNA, with high thermal affinities. The universality of LNA-mediated hybridization has been emphasized by the formation of exceedingly stable LNA:LNA duplexes. LNA:LNA hybridization was shown to be the most thermally stable nucleic acid type duplex system, and the RNA-mimicking character of LNA was established at the duplex level. Introduction of three LNA monomers (T or A) resulted in significantly increased melting points toward DNA complements.
Synthesis of 2′-amino-LNA and 2′-methylamino-LNA has been described and thermal stability of their duplexes with complementary RNA and DNA strands reported. Preparation of phosphorothioate-LNA and 2′-thio-LNA have also been described.
Modified polynucleotide probes or primers may also contain one or more substituted sugar moieties. For example, oligonucleotides may comprise sugars with one of the following substituents at the 2′ position: OH; F; O-, S-, or N-alkyl; O-, S-, or N-alkenyl; O-, S- or N-alkynyl; or O-alkyl-O-alkyl, wherein the alkyl, alkenyl and alkynyl may be substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C10 alkyl or C2 to C10 alkenyl and alkynyl. Examples of such groups are: O[(CH2)nO]mCH3, O(CH2)nOCH3, O(CH2)nNH2, O(CH2)nCH3ONH2, and O(CH2)n ON[(CH2)nCH3)]2, where n and m are from 1 to about 10. Alternatively, the oligonucleotides may comprise one of the following substituents at the 2′ position: C1 to C10 lower alkyl, substituted lower alkyl, alkaryl, aralkyl, O-alkaryl or O-aralkyl, SH, SCH3, OCN, Cl, Br, CN, CF3, OCF3, SOCH3, SO2CH3, ONO2, NO2, N3, NH2, heterocycloalkyl, heterocycloalkaryl, aminoalkylamino, polyalkylamino, substituted silyl, an RNA cleaving group, a reporter group, an intercalator, a group for improving the pharmacokinetic properties of an oligonucleotide, or a group for improving the pharmacodynamic properties of an oligonucleotide, and other substituents having similar properties. Specific examples include 2′-methoxyethoxy (2′-O—CH2CH2OCH3, also known as 2′-O-(2-methoxyethyl) or 2′-MOE), 2′-dimethylaminooxyethoxy (O(CH2)2 ON(CH3)2 group, also known as 2′-DMA0E), 2′-methoxy (2′-O—CH3), 2′-aminopropoxy (2′-OCH2CH2CH2NH2) and 2′-fluoro (2′-F).
Similar modifications may also be made at other positions on the polynucleotide probes or primers, particularly the 3′ position of the sugar on the 3′ terminal nucleotide or in 2′-5′ linked oligonucleotides and the 5′ position of 5′ terminal nucleotide. Polynucleotide probes or primers may also have sugar mimetics such as cyclobutyl moieties in place of the pentofuranosyl sugar.
Polynucleotide probes or primers may also include modifications or substitutions to the nucleobase. As used herein, “unmodified” or “natural” nucleobases include the purine bases adenine (A) and guanine (G), and the pyrimidine bases thymine (T), cytosine (C) and uracil (U).
Modified nucleobases include other synthetic and natural nucleobases such as 5-methylcytosine (5-me-C), 5-hydroxymethyl cytosine, xanthine, hypoxanthine, 2-aminoadenine, 6-methyl and other alkyl derivatives of adenine and guanine, 2-propyl and other alkyl derivatives of adenine and guanine, 2-thiouracil, 2-thiothymine and 2-thiocytosine, 5-halouracil and cytosine, 5-propynyl uracil and cytosine, 6-azo uracil, cytosine and thymine, 5-uracil (pseudouracil), 4-thiouracil, 8-halo, 8-amino, 8-thiol, 8-thioalkyl, 8-hydroxyl and other 8-substituted adenines and guanines, 5-halo particularly 5-bromo, 5-trifluoromethyl and other 5-substituted uracils and cytosines, 7-methylguanine and 7-methyladenine, 8-azaguanine and 8-azaadenine, 7-deazaguanine and 7-deazaadenine and 3-deazaguanine and 3-deazaadenine. Further nucleobases include those disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 3,687,808; The Concise Encyclopedia Of Polymer Science And Engineering, (1990) pp 858-859, Kroschwitz, J. I., ed. John Wiley & Sons; Englisch et al., Angewandte Chemie, Int. Ed., 30:613 (1991); and Sanghvi, Y. S., (1993) Antisense Research and Applications, pp 289-302, Crooke, S. T. and Lebleu, B., ed., CRC Press. Certain of these nucleobases are particularly useful for increasing the binding affinity of the polynucleotide probes of the invention. These include 5-substituted pyrimidines, 6-azapyrimidines and N-2, N-6 and O-6 substituted purines, including 2-aminopropyladenine, 5-propynyluracil and 5-propynylcytosine. 5-methylcytosine substitutions have been shown to increase nucleic acid duplex stability by 0.6-1.2° C.
One skilled in the art recognizes that it is not necessary for all positions in a given polynucleotide probe or primer to be uniformly modified. The present invention, therefore, contemplates the incorporation of more than one of the aforementioned modifications into a single polynucleotide probe or even at a single nucleoside within the probe or primer.
One skilled in the art also appreciates that the nucleotide sequence of the entire length of the polynucleotide probe or primer does not need to be derived from the target sequence. Thus, for example, the polynucleotide probe may comprise nucleotide sequences at the 5′ and/or 3′ termini that are not derived from the target sequences. Nucleotide sequences which are not derived from the nucleotide sequence of the target sequence may provide additional functionality to the polynucleotide probe. For example, they may provide a restriction enzyme recognition sequence or a “tag” that facilitates detection, isolation, purification or immobilization onto a solid support. Alternatively, the additional nucleotides may provide a self-complementary sequence that allows the primer/probe to adopt a hairpin configuration. Such configurations are necessary for certain probes, for example, molecular beacon and Scorpion probes, which can be used in solution hybridization techniques.
The polynucleotide probes or primers can incorporate moieties useful in detection, isolation, purification, or immobilization, if desired. Such moieties are well-known in the art (see, for example, Ausubel et al., (1997 & updates) Current Protocols in Molecular Biology, Wiley & Sons, New York) and are chosen such that the ability of the probe to hybridize with its target sequence is not affected.
Examples of suitable moieties are detectable labels, such as radioisotopes, fluorophores, chemiluminophores, enzymes, colloidal particles, and fluorescent microparticles, as well as antigens, antibodies, haptens, avidin/streptavidin, biotin, haptens, enzyme cofactors/substrates, enzymes, and the like.
A label can optionally be attached to or incorporated into a probe or primer polynucleotide to allow detection and/or quantitation of a target polynucleotide representing the target sequence of interest. The target polynucleotide may be the expressed target sequence RNA itself, a cDNA copy thereof, or an amplification product derived therefrom, and may be the positive or negative strand, so long as it can be specifically detected in the assay being used. Similarly, an antibody may be labeled.
In certain multiplex formats, labels used for detecting different targets may be distinguishable. The label can be attached directly (e.g., via covalent linkage) or indirectly, e.g., via a bridging molecule or series of molecules (e.g., a molecule or complex that can bind to an assay component, or via members of a binding pair that can be incorporated into assay components, e.g. biotin-avidin or streptavidin). Many labels are commercially available in activated forms which can readily be used for such conjugation (for example through amine acylation), or labels may be attached through known or determinable conjugation schemes, many of which are known in the art.
Labels useful in the invention described herein include any substance which can be detected when bound to or incorporated into the biomolecule of interest. Any effective detection method can be used, including optical, spectroscopic, electrical, piezoelectrical, magnetic, Raman scattering, surface plasmon resonance, colorimetric, calorimetric, etc. A label is typically selected from a chromophore, a lumiphore, a fluorophore, one member of a quenching system, a chromogen, a hapten, an antigen, a magnetic particle, a material exhibiting nonlinear optics, a semiconductor nanocrystal, a metal nanoparticle, an enzyme, an antibody or binding portion or equivalent thereof, an aptamer, and one member of a binding pair, and combinations thereof. Quenching schemes may be used, wherein a quencher and a fluorophore as members of a quenching pair may be used on a probe, such that a change in optical parameters occurs upon binding to the target introduce or quench the signal from the fluorophore. One example of such a system is a molecular beacon. Suitable quencher/fluorophore systems are known in the art. The label may be bound through a variety of intermediate linkages. For example, a polynucleotide may comprise a biotin-binding species, and an optically detectable label may be conjugated to biotin and then bound to the labeled polynucleotide. Similarly, a polynucleotide sensor may comprise an immunological species such as an antibody or fragment, and a secondary antibody containing an optically detectable label may be added.
Chromophores useful in the methods described herein include any substance which can absorb energy and emit light. For multiplexed assays, a plurality of different signaling chromophores can be used with detectably different emission spectra. The chromophore can be a lumophore or a fluorophore. Typical fluorophores include fluorescent dyes, semiconductor nanocrystals, lanthanide chelates, polynucleotide-specific dyes and green fluorescent protein.
Coding schemes may optionally be used, comprising encoded particles and/or encoded tags associated with different polynucleotides of the invention. A variety of different coding schemes are known in the art, including fluorophores, including SCNCs, deposited metals, and RF tags.
Polynucleotides from the described target sequences may be employed as probes for detecting target sequences expression, for ligation amplification schemes, or may be used as primers for amplification schemes of all or a portion of a target sequences. When amplified, either strand produced by amplification may be provided in purified and/or isolated form.
In one embodiment, polynucleotides of the invention include (a) a nucleic acid depicted in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55; (b) an RNA form of any one of the nucleic acids depicted in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55; (c) a peptide nucleic acid form of any of the nucleic acids depicted in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55; (d) a nucleic acid comprising at least 20 consecutive bases of any of (a-c); (e) a nucleic acid comprising at least 25 bases having at least 90% sequenced identity to any of (a-c); and (f) a complement to any of (a-e).
Complements may take any polymeric form capable of base pairing to the species recited in (a)-(e), including nucleic acid such as RNA or DNA, or may be a neutral polymer such as a peptide nucleic acid. Polynucleotides of the invention can be selected from the subsets of the recited nucleic acids described herein, as well as their complements.
In some embodiments, polynucleotides of the invention comprise at least 20 consecutive bases of the nucleic acid sequence of a target selected from any of Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55 or a complement thereto. The polynucleotides may comprise at least 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 30, 32, 35 or more consecutive bases of the nucleic acids sequence of a target selected from any of Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55, as applicable. In some instances, the targets are selected from Table 2. In some instances, the targets are selected from Table 4. In some instances, the targets are selected from Table 11.
The polynucleotides may be provided in a variety of formats, including as solids, in solution, or in an array. The polynucleotides may optionally comprise one or more labels, which may be chemically and/or enzymatically incorporated into the polynucleotide.
In one embodiment, solutions comprising polynucleotide and a solvent are also provided. In some embodiments, the solvent may be water or may be predominantly aqueous. In some embodiments, the solution may comprise at least two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, twelve, fifteen, seventeen, twenty or more different polynucleotides, including primers and primer pairs, of the invention. Additional substances may be included in the solution, alone or in combination, including one or more labels, additional solvents, buffers, biomolecules, polynucleotides, and one or more enzymes useful for performing methods described herein, including polymerases and ligases. The solution may further comprise a primer or primer pair capable of amplifying a polynucleotide of the invention present in the solution.
In some embodiments, one or more polynucleotides provided herein can be provided on a substrate. The substrate can comprise a wide range of material, either biological, nonbiological, organic, inorganic, or a combination of any of these. For example, the substrate may be a polymerized Langmuir Blodgett film, functionalized glass, Si, Ge, GaAs, GaP, SiO2, SiN4, modified silicon, or any one of a wide variety of gels or polymers such as (poly)tetrafluoroethylene, (poly)vinylidenedifluoride, polystyrene, cross-linked polystyrene, polyacrylic, polylactic acid, polyglycolic acid, poly(lactide coglycolide), polyanhydrides, poly(methyl methacrylate), poly(ethylene-co-vinyl acetate), polysiloxanes, polymeric silica, latexes, dextran polymers, epoxies, polycarbonates, or combinations thereof. Conducting polymers and photoconductive materials can be used.
Substrates can be planar crystalline substrates such as silica based substrates (e.g. glass, quartz, or the like), or crystalline substrates used in, e.g., the semiconductor and microprocessor industries, such as silicon, gallium arsenide, indium doped GaN and the like, and include semiconductor nanocrystals.
The substrate can take the form of an array, a photodiode, an optoelectronic sensor such as an optoelectronic semiconductor chip or optoelectronic thin-film semiconductor, or a biochip. The location(s) of probe(s) on the substrate can be addressable; this can be done in highly dense formats, and the location(s) can be microaddressable or nanoaddressable.
Silica aerogels can also be used as substrates, and can be prepared by methods known in the art. Aerogel substrates may be used as free standing substrates or as a surface coating for another substrate material.
The substrate can take any form and typically is a plate, slide, bead, pellet, disk, particle, microparticle, nanoparticle, strand, precipitate, optionally porous gel, sheets, tube, sphere, container, capillary, pad, slice, film, chip, multiwell plate or dish, optical fiber, etc. The substrate can be any form that is rigid or semi-rigid. The substrate may contain raised or depressed regions on which an assay component is located. The surface of the substrate can be etched using known techniques to provide for desired surface features, for example trenches, v-grooves, mesa structures, or the like.
Surfaces on the substrate can be composed of the same material as the substrate or can be made from a different material, and can be coupled to the substrate by chemical or physical means. Such coupled surfaces may be composed of any of a wide variety of materials, for example, polymers, plastics, resins, polysaccharides, silica or silica-based materials, carbon, metals, inorganic glasses, membranes, or any of the above-listed substrate materials. The surface can be optically transparent and can have surface Si—OH functionalities, such as those found on silica surfaces.
The substrate and/or its optional surface can be chosen to provide appropriate characteristics for the synthetic and/or detection methods used. The substrate and/or surface can be transparent to allow the exposure of the substrate by light applied from multiple directions. The substrate and/or surface may be provided with reflective “mirror” structures to increase the recovery of light.
The substrate and/or its surface is generally resistant to, or is treated to resist, the conditions to which it is to be exposed in use, and can be optionally treated to remove any resistant material after exposure to such conditions.
The substrate or a region thereof may be encoded so that the identity of the sensor located in the substrate or region being queried may be determined. Any suitable coding scheme can be used, for example optical codes, RFID tags, magnetic codes, physical codes, fluorescent codes, and combinations of codes.
Preparation of Probes and Primers
The polynucleotide probes or primers of the present invention can be prepared by conventional techniques well-known to those skilled in the art. For example, the polynucleotide probes can be prepared using solid-phase synthesis using commercially available equipment. As is well-known in the art, modified oligonucleotides can also be readily prepared by similar methods. The polynucleotide probes can also be synthesized directly on a solid support according to methods standard in the art. This method of synthesizing polynucleotides is particularly useful when the polynucleotide probes are part of a nucleic acid array.
Polynucleotide probes or primers can be fabricated on or attached to the substrate by any suitable method, for example the methods described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,143,854, PCT Publ. No. WO 92/10092, U.S. patent application Ser. No. 07/624,120, filed Dec. 6, 1990 (now abandoned), Fodor et al., Science, 251: 767-777 (1991), and PCT Publ. No. WO 90/15070). Techniques for the synthesis of these arrays using mechanical synthesis strategies are described in, e.g., PCT Publication No. WO 93/09668 and U.S. Pat. No. 5,384,261. Still further techniques include bead based techniques such as those described in PCT Appl. No. PCT/US93/04145 and pin based methods such as those described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,288,514. Additional flow channel or spotting methods applicable to attachment of sensor polynucleotides to a substrate are described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 07/980,523, filed Nov. 20, 1992, and U.S. Pat. No. 5,384,261.
Alternatively, the polynucleotide probes of the present invention can be prepared by enzymatic digestion of the naturally occurring target gene, or mRNA or cDNA derived therefrom, by methods known in the art.
Diagnostic Samples
Diagnostic samples for use with the systems and in the methods of the present invention comprise nucleic acids suitable for providing RNAs expression information. In principle, the biological sample from which the expressed RNA is obtained and analyzed for target sequence expression can be any material suspected of comprising cancer tissue or cells. The diagnostic sample can be a biological sample used directly in a method of the invention. Alternatively, the diagnostic sample can be a sample prepared from a biological sample.
In one embodiment, the sample or portion of the sample comprising or suspected of comprising cancer tissue or cells can be any source of biological material, including cells, tissue or fluid, including bodily fluids. Non-limiting examples of the source of the sample include an aspirate, a needle biopsy, a cytology pellet, a bulk tissue preparation or a section thereof obtained for example by surgery or autopsy, lymph fluid, blood, plasma, serum, tumors, and organs. In some embodiments, the sample is from urine. Alternatively, the sample is from blood, plasma or serum. In some embodiments, the sample is from saliva.
The samples may be archival samples, having a known and documented medical outcome, or may be samples from current patients whose ultimate medical outcome is not yet known.
In some embodiments, the sample may be dissected prior to molecular analysis. The sample may be prepared via macrodissection of a bulk tumor specimen or portion thereof, or may be treated via microdissection, for example via Laser Capture Microdissection (LCM).
The sample may initially be provided in a variety of states, as fresh tissue, fresh frozen tissue, fine needle aspirates, and may be fixed or unfixed. Frequently, medical laboratories routinely prepare medical samples in a fixed state, which facilitates tissue storage. A variety of fixatives can be used to fix tissue to stabilize the morphology of cells, and may be used alone or in combination with other agents. Exemplary fixatives include crosslinking agents, alcohols, acetone, Bouin's solution, Zenker solution, Helv solution, osmic acid solution and Carnoy solution.
Crosslinking fixatives can comprise any agent suitable for forming two or more covalent bonds, for example an aldehyde. Sources of aldehydes typically used for fixation include formaldehyde, paraformaldehyde, glutaraldehyde or formalin. Preferably, the crosslinking agent comprises formaldehyde, which may be included in its native form or in the form of paraformaldehyde or formalin. One of skill in the art would appreciate that for samples in which crosslinking fixatives have been used special preparatory steps may be necessary including for example heating steps and proteinase-k digestion; see methods.
One or more alcohols may be used to fix tissue, alone or in combination with other fixatives. Exemplary alcohols used for fixation include methanol, ethanol and isopropanol.
Formalin fixation is frequently used in medical laboratories. Formalin comprises both an alcohol, typically methanol, and formaldehyde, both of which can act to fix a biological sample.
Whether fixed or unfixed, the biological sample may optionally be embedded in an embedding medium. Exemplary embedding media used in histology including paraffin, Tissue-Tek® V.I.P.™, Paramat, Paramat Extra, Paraplast, Paraplast X-tra, Paraplast Plus, Peel Away Paraffin Embedding Wax, Polyester Wax, Carbowax Polyethylene Glycol, Polyfin™, Tissue Freezing Medium TFMFM, Cryo-Get™, and OCT Compound (Electron Microscopy Sciences, Hatfield, Pa.). Prior to molecular analysis, the embedding material may be removed via any suitable techniques, as known in the art. For example, where the sample is embedded in wax, the embedding material may be removed by extraction with organic solvent(s), for example xylenes. Kits are commercially available for removing embedding media from tissues. Samples or sections thereof may be subjected to further processing steps as needed, for example serial hydration or dehydration steps.
In some embodiments, the sample is a fixed, wax-embedded biological sample. Frequently, samples from medical laboratories are provided as fixed, wax-embedded samples, most commonly as formalin-fixed, paraffin embedded (FFPE) tissues.
Whatever the source of the biological sample, the target polynucleotide that is ultimately assayed can be prepared synthetically (in the case of control sequences), but typically is purified from the biological source and subjected to one or more preparative steps. The RNA may be purified to remove or diminish one or more undesired components from the biological sample or to concentrate it. Conversely, where the RNA is too concentrated for the particular assay, it may be diluted.
RNA Extraction
RNA can be extracted and purified from biological samples using any suitable technique. A number of techniques are known in the art, and several are commercially available (e.g., FormaPure nucleic acid extraction kit, Agencourt Biosciences, Beverly Mass., High Pure FFPE RNA Micro Kit, Roche Applied Science, Indianapolis, Ind.). RNA can be extracted from frozen tissue sections using TRIzol (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, Calif.) and purified using RNeasy Protect kit (Qiagen, Valencia, Calif.). RNA can be further purified using DNAse I treatment (Ambion, Austin, Tex.) to eliminate any contaminating DNA. RNA concentrations can be made using a Nanodrop ND-1000 spectrophotometer (Nanodrop Technologies, Rockland, Del.). RNA can be further purified to eliminate contaminants that interfere with cDNA synthesis by cold sodium acetate precipitation. RNA integrity can be evaluated by running electropherograms, and RNA integrity number (RIN, a correlative measure that indicates intactness of mRNA) can be determined using the RNA 6000 PicoAssay for the Bioanalyzer 2100 (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, Calif.).
Kits
Kits for performing the desired method(s) are also provided, and comprise a container or housing for holding the components of the kit, one or more vessels containing one or more nucleic acid(s), and optionally one or more vessels containing one or more reagents. The reagents include those described in the composition of matter section above, and those reagents useful for performing the methods described, including amplification reagents, and may include one or more probes, primers or primer pairs, enzymes (including polymerases and ligases), intercalating dyes, labeled probes, and labels that can be incorporated into amplification products.
In some embodiments, the kit comprises primers or primer pairs specific for those subsets and combinations of target sequences described herein. At least two, three, four or five primers or pairs of primers suitable for selectively amplifying the same number of target sequence-specific polynucleotides can be provided in kit form. In some embodiments, the kit comprises from five to fifty primers or pairs of primers suitable for amplifying the same number of target sequence-representative polynucleotides of interest.
In some embodiments, the primers or primer pairs of the kit, when used in an amplification reaction, specifically amplify a non-coding target, coding target, or non-exonic target described herein, at least a portion of a nucleic acid sequence depicted in one of SEQ ID NOs: 1-43, a nucleic acid sequence corresponding to a target selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55, an RNA form thereof, or a complement to either thereof. The kit may include a plurality of such primers or primer pairs which can specifically amplify a corresponding plurality of different amplify a non-coding target, coding target, or non-exonic transcript described herein, nucleic acids depicted in one of SEQ ID NOs: 1-43, a nucleic acid sequence corresponding to a target selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55, RNA forms thereof, or complements thereto. At least two, three, four or five primers or pairs of primers suitable for selectively amplifying the same number of target sequence-specific polynucleotides can be provided in kit form. In some embodiments, the kit comprises from five to fifty primers or pairs of primers suitable for amplifying the same number of target sequence-representative polynucleotides of interest. In some instances, the targets are selected from Table 2. In some instances, the targets are selected from Table 4. In some instances, the targets are selected from Table 11.
The reagents may independently be in liquid or solid form. The reagents may be provided in mixtures. Control samples and/or nucleic acids may optionally be provided in the kit. Control samples may include tissue and/or nucleic acids obtained from or representative of tumor samples from patients showing no evidence of disease, as well as tissue and/or nucleic acids obtained from or representative of tumor samples from patients that develop systemic cancer.
The nucleic acids may be provided in an array format, and thus an array or microarray may be included in the kit. The kit optionally may be certified by a government agency for use in prognosing the disease outcome of cancer patients and/or for designating a treatment modality.
Instructions for using the kit to perform one or more methods of the invention can be provided with the container, and can be provided in any fixed medium. The instructions may be located inside or outside the container or housing, and/or may be printed on the interior or exterior of any surface thereof. A kit may be in multiplex form for concurrently detecting and/or quantitating one or more different target polynucleotides representing the expressed target sequences.
Devices
Devices useful for performing methods of the invention are also provided. The devices can comprise means for characterizing the expression level of a target sequence of the invention, for example components for performing one or more methods of nucleic acid extraction, amplification, and/or detection. Such components may include one or more of an amplification chamber (for example a thermal cycler), a plate reader, a spectrophotometer, capillary electrophoresis apparatus, a chip reader, and or robotic sample handling components. These components ultimately can obtain data that reflects the expression level of the target sequences used in the assay being employed.
The devices may include an excitation and/or a detection means. Any instrument that provides a wavelength that can excite a species of interest and is shorter than the emission wavelength(s) to be detected can be used for excitation. Commercially available devices can provide suitable excitation wavelengths as well as suitable detection component.
Exemplary excitation sources include a broadband UV light source such as a deuterium lamp with an appropriate filter, the output of a white light source such as a xenon lamp or a deuterium lamp after passing through a monochromator to extract out the desired wavelength(s), a continuous wave (cw) gas laser, a solid state diode laser, or any of the pulsed lasers. Emitted light can be detected through any suitable device or technique; many suitable approaches are known in the art. For example, a fluorimeter or spectrophotometer may be used to detect whether the test sample emits light of a wavelength characteristic of a label used in an assay.
The devices typically comprise a means for identifying a given sample, and of linking the results obtained to that sample. Such means can include manual labels, barcodes, and other indicators which can be linked to a sample vessel, and/or may optionally be included in the sample itself, for example where an encoded particle is added to the sample. The results may be linked to the sample, for example in a computer memory that contains a sample designation and a record of expression levels obtained from the sample. Linkage of the results to the sample can also include a linkage to a particular sample receptacle in the device, which is also linked to the sample identity.
In some instances, the devices also comprise a means for correlating the expression levels of the target sequences being studied with a prognosis of disease outcome. In some instances, such means comprises one or more of a variety of correlative techniques, including lookup tables, algorithms, multivariate models, and linear or nonlinear combinations of expression models or algorithms. The expression levels may be converted to one or more likelihood scores, reflecting likelihood that the patient providing the sample may exhibit a particular disease outcome. The models and/or algorithms can be provided in machine readable format and can optionally further designate a treatment modality for a patient or class of patients.
The device also comprises output means for outputting the disease status, prognosis and/or a treatment modality. Such output means can take any form which transmits the results to a patient and/or a healthcare provider, and may include a monitor, a printed format, or both. The device may use a computer system for performing one or more of the steps provided.
In some embodiments, the method, systems, and kits disclosed herein further comprise the transmission of data/information. For example, data/information derived from the detection and/or quantification of the target may be transmitted to another device and/or instrument. In some instances, the information obtained from an algorithm is transmitted to another device and/or instrument. Transmission of the data/information may comprise the transfer of data/information from a first source to a second source. The first and second sources may be in the same approximate location (e.g., within the same room, building, block, campus). Alternatively, first and second sources may be in multiple locations (e.g., multiple cities, states, countries, continents, etc).
In some instances, transmission of the data/information comprises digital transmission or analog transmission. Digital transmission may comprise the physical transfer of data (a digital bit stream) over a point-to-point or point-to-multipoint communication channel. Examples of such channels are copper wires, optical fibers, wireless communication channels, and storage media. In some embodiments, the data is represented as an electromagnetic signal, such as an electrical voltage, radiowave, microwave, or infrared signal.
Analog transmission may comprise the transfer of a continuously varying analog signal. The messages can either be represented by a sequence of pulses by means of a line code (baseband transmission), or by a limited set of continuously varying wave forms (passband transmission), using a digital modulation method. The passband modulation and corresponding demodulation (also known as detection) can be carried out by modem equipment. According to the most common definition of digital signal, both baseband and passband signals representing bit-streams are considered as digital transmission, while an alternative definition only considers the baseband signal as digital, and passband transmission of digital data as a form of digital-to-analog conversion.
Amplification and Hybridization
Following sample collection and nucleic acid extraction, the nucleic acid portion of the sample comprising RNA that is or can be used to prepare the target polynucleotide(s) of interest can be subjected to one or more preparative reactions. These preparative reactions can include in vitro transcription (IVT), labeling, fragmentation, amplification and other reactions. mRNA can first be treated with reverse transcriptase and a primer to create cDNA prior to detection, quantitation and/or amplification; this can be done in vitro with purified mRNA or in situ, e.g., in cells or tissues affixed to a slide.
By “amplification” is meant any process of producing at least one copy of a nucleic acid, in this case an expressed RNA, and in many cases produces multiple copies. An amplification product can be RNA or DNA, and may include a complementary strand to the expressed target sequence. DNA amplification products can be produced initially through reverse translation and then optionally from further amplification reactions. The amplification product may include all or a portion of a target sequence, and may optionally be labeled. A variety of amplification methods are suitable for use, including polymerase-based methods and ligation-based methods. Exemplary amplification techniques include the polymerase chain reaction method (PCR), the lipase chain reaction (LCR), ribozyme-based methods, self sustained sequence replication (3SR), nucleic acid sequence-based amplification (NASBA), the use of Q Beta replicase, reverse transcription, nick translation, and the like.
Asymmetric amplification reactions may be used to preferentially amplify one strand representing the target sequence that is used for detection as the target polynucleotide. In some cases, the presence and/or amount of the amplification product itself may be used to determine the expression level of a given target sequence. In other instances, the amplification product may be used to hybridize to an array or other substrate comprising sensor polynucleotides which are used to detect and/or quantitate target sequence expression.
The first cycle of amplification in polymerase-based methods typically forms a primer extension product complementary to the template strand. If the template is single-stranded RNA, a polymerase with reverse transcriptase activity is used in the first amplification to reverse transcribe the RNA to DNA, and additional amplification cycles can be performed to copy the primer extension products. The primers for a PCR must, of course, be designed to hybridize to regions in their corresponding template that can produce an amplifiable segment; thus, each primer must hybridize so that its 3′ nucleotide is paired to a nucleotide in its complementary template strand that is located 3′ from the 3′ nucleotide of the primer used to replicate that complementary template strand in the PCR.
The target polynucleotide can be amplified by contacting one or more strands of the target polynucleotide with a primer and a polymerase having suitable activity to extend the primer and copy the target polynucleotide to produce a full-length complementary polynucleotide or a smaller portion thereof. Any enzyme having a polymerase activity that can copy the target polynucleotide can be used, including DNA polymerases, RNA polymerases, reverse transcriptases, enzymes having more than one type of polymerase or enzyme activity. The enzyme can be thermolabile or thermostable. Mixtures of enzymes can also be used. Exemplary enzymes include: DNA polymerases such as DNA Polymerase I (“Pol I”), the Klenow fragment of Pol I, T4, T7, Sequenase® T7, Sequenase® Version 2.0 T7, Tub, Taq, Tth, Pfic, Pfu, Tsp, Tfl, Tli and Pyrococcus sp GB-D DNA polymerases; RNA polymerases such as E. coil, SP6, T3 and T7 RNA polymerases; and reverse transcriptases such as AMV, M-MuLV, MMLV, RNAse H MMLV (SuperScript®), SuperScript® II, ThermoScript®, HIV-1, and RAV2 reverse transcriptases. All of these enzymes are commercially available. Exemplary polymerases with multiple specificities include RAV2 and Tli (exo-) polymerases. Exemplary thermostable polymerases include Tub, Taq, Tth, Pfic, Pfu, Tsp, Tfl, Tli and Pyrococcus sp. GB-D DNA polymerases.
Suitable reaction conditions are chosen to permit amplification of the target polynucleotide, including pH, buffer, ionic strength, presence and concentration of one or more salts, presence and concentration of reactants and cofactors such as nucleotides and magnesium and/or other metal ions (e.g., manganese), optional cosolvents, temperature, thermal cycling profile for amplification schemes comprising a polymerase chain reaction, and may depend in part on the polymerase being used as well as the nature of the sample. Cosolvents include formamide (typically at from about 2 to about 10%), glycerol (typically at from about 5 to about 10%), and DMSO (typically at from about 0.9 to about 10%). Techniques may be used in the amplification scheme in order to minimize the production of false positives or artifacts produced during amplification. These include “touchdown” PCR, hot-start techniques, use of nested primers, or designing PCR primers so that they form stem-loop structures in the event of primer-dimer formation and thus are not amplified. Techniques to accelerate PCR can be used, for example centrifugal PCR, which allows for greater convection within the sample, and comprising infrared heating steps for rapid heating and cooling of the sample. One or more cycles of amplification can be performed. An excess of one primer can be used to produce an excess of one primer extension product during PCR; preferably, the primer extension product produced in excess is the amplification product to be detected. A plurality of different primers may be used to amplify different target polynucleotides or different regions of a particular target polynucleotide within the sample.
An amplification reaction can be performed under conditions which allow an optionally labeled sensor polynucleotide to hybridize to the amplification product during at least part of an amplification cycle. When the assay is performed in this manner, real-time detection of this hybridization event can take place by monitoring for light emission or fluorescence during amplification, as known in the art.
Where the amplification product is to be used for hybridization to an array or microarray, a number of suitable commercially available amplification products are available. These include amplification kits available from NuGEN, Inc. (San Carlos, Calif.), including the WT-Ovation™ System, WT-Ovation™ System v2, WT-Ovation™ Pico System, WT-Ovation™ FFPE Exon Module, WT-Ovation™ FFPE Exon Module RiboAmp and RiboAmp Plus RNA Amplification Kits (MDS Analytical Technologies (formerly Arcturus) (Mountain View, Calif.), Genisphere, Inc. (Hatfield, Pa.), including the RampUp Plus™ and SenseAmp™ RNA Amplification kits, alone or in combination. Amplified nucleic acids may be subjected to one or more purification reactions after amplification and labeling, for example using magnetic beads (e.g., RNAClean magnetic beads, Agencourt Biosciences).
Multiple RNA biomarkers can be analyzed using real-time quantitative multiplex RT-PCR platforms and other multiplexing technologies such as GenomeLab GeXP Genetic Analysis System (Beckman Coulter, Foster City, Calif.), SmartCycler® 9600 or GeneXpert® Systems (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, Calif.), ABI 7900 HT Fast Real Time PCR system (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, Calif.), LightCycler® 480 System (Roche Molecular Systems, Pleasanton, Calif.), xMAP 100 System (Luminex, Austin, Tex.) Solexa Genome Analysis System (Illumina, Hayward, Calif.), OpenArray Real Time qPCR (BioTrove, Woburn, Mass.) and BeadXpress System (Illumina, Hayward, Calif.).
Detection and/or Quantification of Target Sequences
Any method of detecting and/or quantitating the expression of the encoded target sequences can in principle be used in the invention. The expressed target sequences can be directly detected and/or quantitated, or may be copied and/or amplified to allow detection of amplified copies of the expressed target sequences or its complement.
Methods for detecting and/or quantifying a target can include Northern blotting, sequencing, array or microarray hybridization, by enzymatic cleavage of specific structures (e.g., an Invader® assay, Third Wave Technologies, e.g. as described in U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,846,717, 6,090,543; 6,001,567; 5,985,557; and 5,994,069) and amplification methods, e.g. RT-PCR, including in a TaqMan® assay (PE Biosystems, Foster City, Calif., e.g. as described in U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,962,233 and 5,538,848), and may be quantitative or semi-quantitative, and may vary depending on the origin, amount and condition of the available biological sample. Combinations of these methods may also be used. For example, nucleic acids may be amplified, labeled and subjected to microarray analysis.
In some instances, target sequences may be detected by sequencing. Sequencing methods may comprise whole genome sequencing or exome sequencing. Sequencing methods such as Maxim-Gilbert, chain-termination, or high-throughput systems may also be used. Additional, suitable sequencing techniques include classic dideoxy sequencing reactions (Sanger method) using labeled terminators or primers and gel separation in slab or capillary, sequencing by synthesis using reversibly terminated labeled nucleotides, pyrosequencing, 454 sequencing, allele specific hybridization to a library of labeled oligonucleotide probes, sequencing by synthesis using allele specific hybridization to a library of labeled clones that is followed by ligation, real time monitoring of the incorporation of labeled nucleotides during a polymerization step, and SOLiD sequencing.
Additional methods for detecting and/or quantifying a target include single-molecule sequencing (e.g., Helicos, PacBio), sequencing by synthesis (e.g., Illumina, Ion Torrent), sequencing by ligation (e.g., ABI SOLID), sequencing by hybridization (e.g., Complete Genomics), in situ hybridization, bead-array technologies (e.g., Luminex xMAP, Illumina BeadChips), branched DNA technology (e.g., Panomics, Genisphere). Sequencing methods may use fluorescent (e.g., Illumina) or electronic (e.g., Ion Torrent, Oxford Nanopore) methods of detecting nucleotides.
Reverse Transcription for ORT-PCR Analysis
Reverse transcription can be performed by any method known in the art. For example, reverse transcription may be performed using the Omniscript kit (Qiagen, Valencia, Calif.), Superscript III kit (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, Calif.), for RT-PCR. Target-specific priming can be performed in order to increase the sensitivity of detection of target sequences and generate target-specific cDNA.
TaqMan® Gene Expression Analysis
TaqMan®RT-PCR can be performed using Applied Biosystems Prism (ABI) 7900 HT instruments in a 5 1.11 volume with target sequence-specific cDNA equivalent to 1 ng total RNA.
Primers and probes concentrations for TaqMan analysis are added to amplify fluorescent amplicons using PCR cycling conditions such as 95° C. for 10 minutes for one cycle, 95° C. for 20 seconds, and 60° C. for 45 seconds for 40 cycles. A reference sample can be assayed to ensure reagent and process stability. Negative controls (e.g., no template) should be assayed to monitor any exogenous nucleic acid contamination.
Classification Arrays
The present invention contemplates that a probe set or probes derived therefrom may be provided in an array format. In the context of the present invention, an “array” is a spatially or logically organized collection of polynucleotide probes. An array comprising probes specific for a coding target, non-coding target, or a combination thereof may be used. Alternatively, an array comprising probes specific for two or more of transcripts of a target selected from any of Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55 or a product derived thereof can be used. Desirably, an array may be specific for 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 50, 75, 100, 150, 200 or more of transcripts of a target selected from any of Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some instances, the target is selected from Table 2. In other instances, the target is selected from Table 4. In some embodiments, the target is selected from Table 11. Expression of these sequences may be detected alone or in combination with other transcripts. In some embodiments, an array is used which comprises a wide range of sensor probes for prostate-specific expression products, along with appropriate control sequences. In some instances, the array may comprise the Human Exon 1.0 ST Array (HuEx 1.0 ST, Affymetrix, Inc., Santa Clara, Calif.).
Typically the polynucleotide probes are attached to a solid substrate and are ordered so that the location (on the substrate) and the identity of each are known. The polynucleotide probes can be attached to one of a variety of solid substrates capable of withstanding the reagents and conditions necessary for use of the array. Examples include, but are not limited to, polymers, such as (poly)tetrafluoroethylene, (poly)vinylidenedifluoride, polystyrene, polycarbonate, polypropylene and polystyrene; ceramic; silicon; silicon dioxide; modified silicon; (fused) silica, quartz or glass; functionalized glass; paper, such as filter paper; diazotized cellulose; nitrocellulose filter; nylon membrane; and polyacrylamide gel pad. Substrates that are transparent to light are useful for arrays that may be used in an assay that involves optical detection.
Examples of array formats include membrane or filter arrays (for example, nitrocellulose, nylon arrays), plate arrays (for example, multiwell, such as a 24-, 96-, 256-, 384-, 864- or 1536-well, microtitre plate arrays), pin arrays, and bead arrays (for example, in a liquid “slurry”). Arrays on substrates such as glass or ceramic slides are often referred to as chip arrays or “chips.” Such arrays are well known in the art. In one embodiment of the present invention, the Cancer Prognosticarray is a chip.
Data Analysis
In some embodiments, one or more pattern recognition methods can be used in analyzing the expression level of target sequences. The pattern recognition method can comprise a linear combination of expression levels, or a nonlinear combination of expression levels. In some embodiments, expression measurements for RNA transcripts or combinations of RNA transcript levels are formulated into linear or non-linear models or algorithms (e.g., an ‘expression signature’) and converted into a likelihood score. This likelihood score indicates the probability that a biological sample is from a patient who may exhibit no evidence of disease, who may exhibit systemic cancer, or who may exhibit biochemical recurrence. The likelihood score can be used to distinguish these disease states. The models and/or algorithms can be provided in machine readable format, and may be used to correlate expression levels or an expression profile with a disease state, and/or to designate a treatment modality for a patient or class of patients.
Assaying the expression level for a plurality of targets may comprise the use of an algorithm or classifier. Array data can be managed, classified, and analyzed using techniques known in the art. Assaying the expression level for a plurality of targets may comprise probe set modeling and data pre-processing. Probe set modeling and data pre-processing can be derived using the Robust Multi-Array (RMA) algorithm or variants GC-RMA, fRMA, Probe Logarithmic Intensity Error (PLIER) algorithm or variant iterPLIER. Variance or intensity filters can be applied to pre-process data using the RMA algorithm, for example by removing target sequences with a standard deviation of <10 or a mean intensity of <100 intensity units of a normalized data range, respectively.
Alternatively, assaying the expression level for a plurality of targets may comprise the use of a machine learning algorithm. The machine learning algorithm may comprise a supervised learning algorithm. Examples of supervised learning algorithms may include Average One-Dependence Estimators (AODE), Artificial neural network (e.g., Backpropagation), Bayesian statistics (e.g., Naive Bayes classifier, Bayesian network, Bayesian knowledge base), Case-based reasoning, Decision trees, Inductive logic programming, Gaussian process regression, Group method of data handling (GMDH), Learning Automata, Learning Vector Quantization, Minimum message length (decision trees, decision graphs, etc.), Lazy learning, Instance-based learning Nearest Neighbor Algorithm, Analogical modeling, Probably approximately correct learning (PAC) learning, Ripple down rules, a knowledge acquisition methodology, Symbolic machine learning algorithms, Subsymbolic machine learning algorithms, Support vector machines, Random Forests, Ensembles of classifiers, Bootstrap aggregating (bagging), and Boosting. Supervised learning may comprise ordinal classification such as regression analysis and Information fuzzy networks (IFN). Alternatively, supervised learning methods may comprise statistical classification, such as AODE, Linear classifiers (e.g., Fisher's linear discriminant, Logistic regression, Naive Bayes classifier, Perceptron, and Support vector machine), quadratic classifiers, k-nearest neighbor, Boosting, Decision trees (e.g., C4.5, Random forests), Bayesian networks, and Hidden Markov models.
The machine learning algorithms may also comprise an unsupervised learning algorithm. Examples of unsupervised learning algorithms may include artificial neural network, Data clustering, Expectation-maximization algorithm, Self-organizing map, Radial basis function network, Vector Quantization, Generative topographic map, Information bottleneck method, and IBSEAD. Unsupervised learning may also comprise association rule learning algorithms such as Apriori algorithm, Eclat algorithm and FP-growth algorithm. Hierarchical clustering, such as Single-linkage clustering and Conceptual clustering, may also be used. Alternatively, unsupervised learning may comprise partitional clustering such as K-means algorithm and Fuzzy clustering.
In some instances, the machine learning algorithms comprise a reinforcement learning algorithm. Examples of reinforcement learning algorithms include, but are not limited to, temporal difference learning, Q-learning and Learning Automata. Alternatively, the machine learning algorithm may comprise Data Pre-processing.
Preferably, the machine learning algorithms may include, but are not limited to, Average One-Dependence Estimators (AODE), Fisher's linear discriminant, Logistic regression, Perceptron, Multilayer Perceptron, Artificial Neural Networks, Support vector machines, Quadratic classifiers, Boosting, Decision trees, C4.5, Bayesian networks, Hidden Markov models, High-Dimensional Discriminant Analysis, and Gaussian Mixture Models. The machine learning algorithm may comprise support vector machines, Naïve Bayes classifier, k-nearest neighbor, high-dimensional discriminant analysis, or Gaussian mixture models. In some instances, the machine learning algorithm comprises Random Forests.
Additional Techniques and Tests
Factors known in the art for diagnosing and/or suggesting, selecting, designating, recommending or otherwise determining a course of treatment for a patient or class of patients suspected of having cancer can be employed in combination with measurements of the target sequence expression. The methods disclosed herein may include additional techniques such as cytology, histology, ultrasound analysis, MRI results, CT scan results, and measurements of PSA levels.
Certified tests for classifying disease status and/or designating treatment modalities may also be used in diagnosing, predicting, and/or monitoring the status or outcome of a cancer in a subject. A certified test may comprise a means for characterizing the expression levels of one or more of the target sequences of interest, and a certification from a government regulatory agency endorsing use of the test for classifying the disease status of a biological sample.
In some embodiments, the certified test may comprise reagents for amplification reactions used to detect and/or quantitate expression of the target sequences to be characterized in the test. An array of probe nucleic acids can be used, with or without prior target amplification, for use in measuring target sequence expression.
The test is submitted to an agency having authority to certify the test for use in distinguishing disease status and/or outcome. Results of detection of expression levels of the target sequences used in the test and correlation with disease status and/or outcome are submitted to the agency. A certification authorizing the diagnostic and/or prognostic use of the test is obtained.
Also provided are portfolios of expression levels comprising a plurality of normalized expression levels of the target selected from any of Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some instances, the target is selected from Table 2. In other instances, the target is selected from Table 4. In some embodiments, the target is selected from Table 11. Such portfolios may be provided by performing the methods described herein to obtain expression levels from an individual patient or from a group of patients. The expression levels can be normalized by any method known in the art; exemplary normalization methods that can be used in various embodiments include Robust Multichip Average (RMA), probe logarithmic intensity error estimation (PLIER), non-linear fit (NLFIT) quantile-based and nonlinear normalization, and combinations thereof. Background correction can also be performed on the expression data; exemplary techniques useful for background correction include mode of intensities, normalized using median polish probe modeling and sketch-normalization.
In some embodiments, portfolios are established such that the combination of genes in the portfolio exhibit improved sensitivity and specificity relative to known methods. In considering a group of genes for inclusion in a portfolio, a small standard deviation in expression measurements correlates with greater specificity. Other measurements of variation such as correlation coefficients can also be used in this capacity. The invention also encompasses the above methods where the expression level determines the status or outcome of a cancer in the subject with at least about 45% specificity. In some embodiments, the expression level determines the status or outcome of a cancer in the subject with at least about 50% specificity. In some embodiments, the expression level determines the status or outcome of a cancer in the subject with at least about 55% specificity. In some embodiments, the expression level determines the status or outcome of a cancer in the subject with at least about 60% specificity. In some embodiments, the expression level determines the status or outcome of a cancer in the subject with at least about 65% specificity. In some embodiments, the expression level determines the status or outcome of a cancer in the subject with at least about 70% specificity. In some embodiments, the expression level determines the status or outcome of a cancer in the subject with at least about 75% specificity. In some embodiments, the expression level determines the status or outcome of a cancer in the subject with at least about 80% specificity. In some embodiments, t the expression level determines the status or outcome of a cancer in the subject with at least about 85% specificity. In some embodiments, the expression level determines the status or outcome of a cancer in the subject with at least about 90% specificity. In some embodiments, the expression level determines the status or outcome of a cancer in the subject with at least about 95% specificity.
The invention also encompasses the any of the methods disclosed herein where the accuracy of diagnosing, monitoring, and/or predicting a status or outcome of a cancer is at least about 45%. In some embodiments, the accuracy of diagnosing, monitoring, and/or predicting a status or outcome of a cancer is at least about 50%. In some embodiments, the accuracy of diagnosing, monitoring, and/or predicting a status or outcome of a cancer is at least about 55%. In some embodiments, the accuracy of diagnosing, monitoring, and/or predicting a status or outcome of a cancer is at least about 60%. In some embodiments, the accuracy of diagnosing, monitoring, and/or predicting a status or outcome of a cancer is at least about 65%. In some embodiments, the accuracy of diagnosing, monitoring, and/or predicting a status or outcome of a cancer is at least about 70%. In some embodiments, the accuracy of diagnosing, monitoring, and/or predicting a status or outcome of a cancer is at least about 75%. In some embodiments, the accuracy of diagnosing, monitoring, and/or predicting a status or outcome of a cancer is at least about 80%. In some embodiments, the accuracy of diagnosing, monitoring, and/or predicting a status or outcome of a cancer is at least about 85%. In some embodiments, the accuracy of diagnosing, monitoring, and/or predicting a status or outcome of a cancer is at least about 90%. In some embodiments, the accuracy of diagnosing, monitoring, and/or predicting a status or outcome of a cancer is at least about 95%.
The accuracy of a classifier or biomarker may be determined by the 95% confidence interval (CI). Generally, a classifier or biomarker is considered to have good accuracy if the 95% CI does not overlap 1. In some instances, the 95% CI of a classifier or biomarker is at least about 1.08, 1.10, 1.12, 1.14, 1.15, 1.16, 1.17, 1.18, 1.19, 1.20, 1.21, 1.22, 1.23, 1.24, 1.25, 1.26, 1.27, 1.28, 1.29, 1.30, 1.31, 1.32, 1.33, 1.34, or 1.35 or more. The 95% CI of a classifier or biomarker may be at least about 1.14, 1.15, 1.16, 1.20, 1.21, 1.26, or 1.28. The 95% CI of a classifier or biomarker may be less than about 1.75, 1.74, 1.73, 1.72, 1.71, 1.70, 1.69, 1.68, 1.67, 1.66, 1.65, 1.64, 1.63, 1.62, 1.61, 1.60, 1.59, 1.58, 1.57, 1.56, 1.55, 1.54, 1.53, 1.52, 1.51, 1.50 or less. The 95% CI of a classifier or biomarker may be less than about 1.61, 1.60, 1.59, 1.58, 1.56, 1.55, or 1.53. The 95% CI of a classifier or biomarker may be between about 1.10 to 1.70, between about 1.12 to about 1.68, between about 1.14 to about 1.62, between about 1.15 to about 1.61, between about 1.15 to about 1.59, between about 1.16 to about 1.160, between about 1.19 to about 1.55, between about 1.20 to about 1.54, between about 1.21 to about 1.53, between about 1.26 to about 1.63, between about 1.27 to about 1.61, or between about 1.28 to about 1.60.
In some instances, the accuracy of a biomarker or classifier is dependent on the difference in range of the 95% CI (e.g., difference in the high value and low value of the 95% CI interval). Generally, biomarkers or classifiers with large differences in the range of the 95% CI interval have greater variability and are considered less accurate than biomarkers or classifiers with small differences in the range of the 95% CI intervals. In some instances, a biomarker or classifier is considered more accurate if the difference in the range of the 95% CI is less than about 0.60, 0.55, 0.50, 0.49, 0.48, 0.47, 0.46, 0.45, 0.44, 0.43, 0.42, 0.41, 0.40, 0.39, 0.38, 0.37, 0.36, 0.35, 0.34, 0.33, 0.32, 0.31, 0.30, 0.29, 0.28, 0.27, 0.26, 0.25 or less. The difference in the range of the 95% CI of a biomarker or classifier may be less than about 0.48, 0.45, 0.44, 0.42, 0.40, 0.37, 0.35, 0.33, or 0.32. In some instances, the difference in the range of the 95% CI for a biomarker or classifier is between about 0.25 to about 0.50, between about 0.27 to about 0.47, or between about 0.30 to about 0.45.
The invention also encompasses the any of the methods disclosed herein where the sensitivity is at least about 45%. In some embodiments, the sensitivity is at least about 50%. In some embodiments, the sensitivity is at least about 55%. In some embodiments, the sensitivity is at least about 60%. In some embodiments, the sensitivity is at least about 65%. In some embodiments, the sensitivity is at least about 70%. In some embodiments, the sensitivity is at least about 75%. In some embodiments, the sensitivity is at least about 80%. In some embodiments, the sensitivity is at least about 85%. In some embodiments, the sensitivity is at least about 90%. In some embodiments, the sensitivity is at least about 95%.
In some instances, the classifiers or biomarkers disclosed herein are clinically significant. In some instances, the clinical significance of the classifiers or biomarkers is determined by the AUC value. In order to be clinically significant, the AUC value is at least about 0.5, 0.55, 0.6, 0.65, 0.7, 0.75, 0.8, 0.85, 0.9, or 0.95. The clinical significance of the classifiers or biomarkers can be determined by the percent accuracy. For example, a classifier or biomarker is determined to be clinically significant if the accuracy of the classifier or biomarker is at least about 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, 72%, 75%, 77%, 80%, 82%, 84%, 86%, 88%, 90%, 92%, 94%, 96%, or 98%.
In other instances, the clinical significance of the classifiers or biomarkers is determined by the median fold difference (MDF) value. In order to be clinically significant, the MDF value is at least about 0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.9, or 2.0. In some instances, the MDF value is greater than or equal to 1.1. In other instances, the MDF value is greater than or equal to 1.2. Alternatively, or additionally, the clinical significance of the classifiers or biomarkers is determined by the t-test P-value. In some instances, in order to be clinically significant, the t-test P-value is less than about 0.070, 0.065, 0.060, 0.055, 0.050, 0.045, 0.040, 0.035, 0.030, 0.025, 0.020, 0.015, 0.010, 0.005, 0.004, or 0.003. The t-test P-value can be less than about 0.050. Alternatively, the t-test P-value is less than about 0.010.
In some instances, the clinical significance of the classifiers or biomarkers is determined by the clinical outcome. For example, different clinical outcomes can have different minimum or maximum thresholds for AUC values, MDF values, t-test P-values, and accuracy values that would determine whether the classifier or biomarker is clinically significant. In another example, a classifier or biomarker is considered clinically significant if the P-value of the t-test was less than about 0.08, 0.07, 0.06, 0.05, 0.04, 0.03, 0.02, 0.01, 0.005, 0.004, 0.003, 0.002, or 0.001. In some instances, the P-value may be based on any of the following comparisons: BCR vs non-BCR, CP vs non-CP, PCSM vs non-PCSM. For example, a classifier or biomarker is determined to be clinically significant if the P-values of the differences between the KM curves for BCR vs non-BCR, CP vs non-CP, PCSM vs non-PCSM is lower than about 0.08, 0.07, 0.06, 0.05, 0.04, 0.03, 0.02, 0.01, 0.005, 0.004, 0.003, 0.002, or 0.001.
In some instances, the performance of the classifier or biomarker is based on the odds ratio. A classifier or biomarker may be considered to have good performance if the odds ratio is at least about 1.30, 1.31, 1.32, 1.33, 1.34, 1.35, 1.36, 1.37, 1.38, 1.39, 1.40, 1.41, 1.42, 1.43, 1.44, 1.45, 1.46, 1.47, 1.48, 1.49, 1.50, 1.52, 1.55, 1.57, 1.60, 1.62, 1.65, 1.67, 1.70 or more. In some instances, the odds ratio of a classifier or biomarker is at least about 1.33.
The clinical significance of the classifiers and/or biomarkers may be based on Univariable Analysis Odds Ratio P-value (uvaORPval). The Univariable Analysis Odds Ratio P-value (uvaORPval) of the classifier and/or biomarker may be between about 0-0.4. The Univariable Analysis Odds Ratio P-value (uvaORPval) of the classifier and/or biomarker may be between about 0-0.3. The Univariable Analysis Odds Ratio P-value (uvaORPval) of the classifier and/or biomarker may be between about 0-0.2. The Univariable Analysis Odds Ratio P-value (uvaORPval) of the classifier and/or biomarker may be less than or equal to 0.25, 0.22, 0.21, 0.20, 0.19, 0.18, 0.17, 0.16, 0.15, 0.14, 0.13, 0.12, 0.11. The Univariable Analysis Odds Ratio P-value (uvaORPval) of the classifier and/or biomarker may be less than or equal to 0.10, 0.09, 0.08, 0.07, 0.06, 0.05, 0.04, 0.03, 0.02, 0.01. The Univariable Analysis Odds Ratio P-value (uvaORPval) of the classifier and/or biomarker may be less than or equal to 0.009, 0.008, 0.007, 0.006, 0.005, 0.004, 0.003, 0.002, 0.001.
The clinical significance of the classifiers and/or biomarkers may be based on multivariable analysis Odds Ratio P-value (mvaORPval). The multivariable analysis Odds Ratio P-value (mvaORPval) of the classifier and/or biomarker may be between about 0-1. The multivariable analysis Odds Ratio P-value (mvaORPval) of the classifier and/or biomarker may be between about 0-0.9. The multivariable analysis Odds Ratio P-value (mvaORPval) of the classifier and/or biomarker may be between about 0-0.8. The multivariable analysis Odds Ratio P-value (mvaORPval) of the classifier and/or biomarker may be less than or equal to 0.90, 0.88, 0.86, 0.84, 0.82, 0.80. The multivariable analysis Odds Ratio P-value (mvaORPval) of the classifier and/or biomarker may be less than or equal to 0.78, 0.76, 0.74, 0.72, 0.70, 0.68, 0.66, 0.64, 0.62, 0.60, 0.58, 0.56, 0.54, 0.52, 0.50. The multivariable analysis Odds Ratio P-value (mvaORPval) of the classifier and/or biomarker may be less than or equal to 0.48, 0.46, 0.44, 0.42, 0.40, 0.38, 0.36, 0.34, 0.32, 0.30, 0.28, 0.26, 0.25, 0.22, 0.21, 0.20, 0.19, 0.18, 0.17, 0.16, 0.15, 0.14, 0.13, 0.12, 0.11. The multivariable analysis Odds Ratio P-value (mvaORPval) of the classifier and/or biomarker may be less than or equal to 0.10, 0.09, 0.08, 0.07, 0.06, 0.05, 0.04, 0.03, 0.02, 0.01. The multivariable analysis Odds Ratio P-value (mvaORPval) of the classifier and/or biomarker may be less than or equal to 0.009, 0.008, 0.007, 0.006, 0.005, 0.004, 0.003, 0.002, 0.001.
The clinical significance of the classifiers and/or biomarkers may be based on the Kaplan Meier P-value (KM P-value). The Kaplan Meier P-value (KM P-value) of the classifier and/or biomarker may be between about 0-0.8. The Kaplan Meier P-value (KM P-value) of the classifier and/or biomarker may be between about 0-0.7. The Kaplan Meier P-value (KM P-value) of the classifier and/or biomarker may be less than or equal to 0.80, 0.78, 0.76, 0.74, 0.72, 0.70, 0.68, 0.66, 0.64, 0.62, 0.60, 0.58, 0.56, 0.54, 0.52, 0.50. The Kaplan Meier P-value (KM P-value) of the classifier and/or biomarker may be less than or equal to 0.48, 0.46, 0.44, 0.42, 0.40, 0.38, 0.36, 0.34, 0.32, 0.30, 0.28, 0.26, 0.25, 0.22, 0.21, 0.20, 0.19, 0.18, 0.17, 0.16, 0.15, 0.14, 0.13, 0.12, 0.11. The Kaplan Meier P-value (KM P-value) of the classifier and/or biomarker may be less than or equal to 0.10, 0.09, 0.08, 0.07, 0.06, 0.05, 0.04, 0.03, 0.02, 0.01. The Kaplan Meier P-value (KM P-value) of the classifier and/or biomarker may be less than or equal to 0.009, 0.008, 0.007, 0.006, 0.005, 0.004, 0.003, 0.002, 0.001.
The clinical significance of the classifiers and/or biomarkers may be based on the survival AUC value (survAUC). The survival AUC value (survAUC) of the classifier and/or biomarker may be between about 0-1. The survival AUC value (survAUC) of the classifier and/or biomarker may be between about 0-0.9. The survival AUC value (survAUC) of the classifier and/or biomarker may be less than or equal to 1, 0.98, 0.96, 0.94, 0.92, 0.90, 0.88, 0.86, 0.84, 0.82, 0.80. The survival AUC value (survAUC) of the classifier and/or biomarker may be less than or equal to 0.80, 0.78, 0.76, 0.74, 0.72, 0.70, 0.68, 0.66, 0.64, 0.62, 0.60, 0.58, 0.56, 0.54, 0.52, 0.50. The survival AUC value (survAUC) of the classifier and/or biomarker may be less than or equal to 0.48, 0.46, 0.44, 0.42, 0.40, 0.38, 0.36, 0.34, 0.32, 0.30, 0.28, 0.26, 0.25, 0.22, 0.21, 0.20, 0.19, 0.18, 0.17, 0.16, 0.15, 0.14, 0.13, 0.12, 0.11. The survival AUC value (survAUC) of the classifier and/or biomarker may be less than or equal to 0.10, 0.09, 0.08, 0.07, 0.06, 0.05, 0.04, 0.03, 0.02, 0.01. The survival AUC value (survAUC) of the classifier and/or biomarker may be less than or equal to 0.009, 0.008, 0.007, 0.006, 0.005, 0.004, 0.003, 0.002, 0.001.
The clinical significance of the classifiers and/or biomarkers may be based on the Univariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (uvaHRPval). The Univariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (uvaHRPval) of the classifier and/or biomarker may be between about 0-0.4. The Univariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (uvaHRPval) of the classifier and/or biomarker may be between about 0-0.3. The Univariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (uvaHRPval) of the classifier and/or biomarker may be less than or equal to 0.40, 0.38, 0.36, 0.34, 0.32. The Univariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (uvaHRPval) of the classifier and/or biomarker may be less than or equal to 0.30, 0.29, 0.28, 0.27, 0.26, 0.25, 0.24, 0.23, 0.22, 0.21, 0.20. The Univariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (uvaHRPval) of the classifier and/or biomarker may be less than or equal to 0.19, 0.18, 0.17, 0.16, 0.15, 0.14, 0.13, 0.12, 0.11. The Univariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (uvaHRPval) of the classifier and/or biomarker may be less than or equal to 0.10, 0.09, 0.08, 0.07, 0.06, 0.05, 0.04, 0.03, 0.02, 0.01. The Univariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (uvaHRPval) of the classifier and/or biomarker may be less than or equal to 0.009, 0.008, 0.007, 0.006, 0.005, 0.004, 0.003, 0.002, 0.001.
The clinical significance of the classifiers and/or biomarkers may be based on the Multivariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (mvaHRPval)mva HRPval. The Multivariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (mvaHRPval)mva HRPval of the classifier and/or biomarker may be between about 0-1. The Multivariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (mvaHRPval)mva HRPval of the classifier and/or biomarker may be between about 0-0.9. The Multivariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (mvaHRPval)mva HRPval of the classifier and/or biomarker may be less than or equal to 1, 0.98, 0.96, 0.94, 0.92, 0.90, 0.88, 0.86, 0.84, 0.82, 0.80. The Multivariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (mvaHRPval)mva HRPval of the classifier and/or biomarker may be less than or equal to 0.80, 0.78, 0.76, 0.74, 0.72, 0.70, 0.68, 0.66, 0.64, 0.62, 0.60, 0.58, 0.56, 0.54, 0.52, 0.50. The Multivariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (mvaHRPval)mva HRPval of the classifier and/or biomarker may be less than or equal to 0.48, 0.46, 0.44, 0.42, 0.40, 0.38, 0.36, 0.34, 0.32, 0.30, 0.28, 0.26, 0.25, 0.22, 0.21, 0.20, 0.19, 0.18, 0.17, 0.16, 0.15, 0.14, 0.13, 0.12, 0.11. The Multivariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (mvaHRPval)mva HRPval of the classifier and/or biomarker may be less than or equal to 0.10, 0.09, 0.08, 0.07, 0.06, 0.05, 0.04, 0.03, 0.02, 0.01. The Multivariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (mvaHRPval)mva HRPval of the classifier and/or biomarker may be less than or equal to 0.009, 0.008, 0.007, 0.006, 0.005, 0.004, 0.003, 0.002, 0.001.
The clinical significance of the classifiers and/or biomarkers may be based on the Multivariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (mvaHRPval). The Multivariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (mvaHRPval) of the classifier and/or biomarker may be between about 0 to about 0.60. significance of the classifier and/or biomarker may be based on the Multivariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (mvaHRPval). The Multivariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (mvaHRPval) of the classifier and/or biomarker may be between about 0 to about 0.50. significance of the classifier and/or biomarker may be based on the Multivariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (mvaHRPval). The Multivariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (mvaHRPval) of the classifier and/or biomarker may be less than or equal to 0.50, 0.47, 0.45, 0.43, 0.40, 0.38, 0.35, 0.33, 0.30, 0.28, 0.25, 0.22, 0.20, 0.18, 0.16, 0.15, 0.14, 0.13, 0.12, 0.11, 0.10. The Multivariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (mvaHRPval) of the classifier and/or biomarker may be less than or equal to 0.10, 0.09, 0.08, 0.07, 0.06, 0.05, 0.04, 0.03, 0.02, 0.01. The Multivariable Analysis Hazard Ratio P-value (mvaHRPval) of the classifier and/or biomarker may be less than or equal to 0.01, 0.009, 0.008, 0.007, 0.006, 0.005, 0.004, 0.003, 0.002, 0.001.
The classifiers and/or biomarkers disclosed herein may outperform current classifiers or clinical variables in providing clinically relevant analysis of a sample from a subject. In some instances, the classifiers or biomarkers may more accurately predict a clinical outcome or status as compared to current classifiers or clinical variables. For example, a classifier or biomarker may more accurately predict metastatic disease. Alternatively, a classifier or biomarker may more accurately predict no evidence of disease. In some instances, the classifier or biomarker may more accurately predict death from a disease. The performance of a classifier or biomarker disclosed herein may be based on the AUC value, odds ratio, 95% CI, difference in range of the 95% CI, p-value or any combination thereof.
The performance of the classifiers and/or biomarkers disclosed herein may be determined by AUC values and an improvement in performance may be determined by the difference in the AUC value of the classifier or biomarker disclosed herein and the AUC value of current classifiers or clinical variables. In some instances, a classifier and/or biomarker disclosed herein outperforms current classifiers or clinical variables when the AUC value of the classifier and/or or biomarker disclosed herein is greater than the AUC value of the current classifiers or clinical variables by at least about 0.05, 0.06, 0.07, 0.08, 0.09, 0.10, 0.11, 0.12, 0.13, 0.14, 0.15, 0.16, 0.17, 0.18, 0.19, 0.20, 0.022, 0.25, 0.27, 0.30, 0.32, 0.35, 0.37, 0.40, 0.42, 0.45, 0.47, 0.50 or more. In some instances, the AUC value of the classifier and/or or biomarker disclosed herein is greater than the AUC value of the current classifiers or clinical variables by at least about 0.10. In some instances, the AUC value of the classifier and/or or biomarker disclosed herein is greater than the AUC value of the current classifiers or clinical variables by at least about 0.13. In some instances, the AUC value of the classifier and/or or biomarker disclosed herein is greater than the AUC value of the current classifiers or clinical variables by at least about 0.18.
The performance of the classifiers and/or biomarkers disclosed herein may be determined by the odds ratios and an improvement in performance may be determined by comparing the odds ratio of the classifier or biomarker disclosed herein and the odds ratio of current classifiers or clinical variables. Comparison of the performance of two or more classifiers, biomarkers, and/or clinical variables can be generally be based on the comparison of the absolute value of (1-odds ratio) of a first classifier, biomarker or clinical variable to the absolute value of (1-odds ratio) of a second classifier, biomarker or clinical variable. Generally, the classifier, biomarker or clinical variable with the greater absolute value of (1-odds ratio) can be considered to have better performance as compared to the classifier, biomarker or clinical variable with a smaller absolute value of (1-odds ratio).
In some instances, the performance of a classifier, biomarker or clinical variable is based on the comparison of the odds ratio and the 95% confidence interval (CI). For example, a first classifier, biomarker or clinical variable may have a greater absolute value of (1-odds ratio) than a second classifier, biomarker or clinical variable, however, the 95% CI of the first classifier, biomarker or clinical variable may overlap 1 (e.g., poor accuracy), whereas the 95% CI of the second classifier, biomarker or clinical variable does not overlap 1. In this instance, the second classifier, biomarker or clinical variable is considered to outperform the first classifier, biomarker or clinical variable because the accuracy of the first classifier, biomarker or clinical variable is less than the accuracy of the second classifier, biomarker or clinical variable. In another example, a first classifier, biomarker or clinical variable may outperform a second classifier, biomarker or clinical variable based on a comparison of the odds ratio; however, the difference in the 95% CI of the first classifier, biomarker or clinical variable is at least about 2 times greater than the 95% CI of the second classifier, biomarker or clinical variable. In this instance, the second classifier, biomarker or clinical variable is considered to outperform the first classifier.
In some instances, a classifier or biomarker disclosed herein more accurate than a current classifier or clinical variable. The classifier or biomarker disclosed herein is more accurate than a current classifier or clinical variable if the range of 95% CI of the classifier or biomarker disclosed herein does not span or overlap 1 and the range of the 95% CI of the current classifier or clinical variable spans or overlaps 1.
In some instances, a classifier or biomarker disclosed herein more accurate than a current classifier or clinical variable. The classifier or biomarker disclosed herein is more accurate than a current classifier or clinical variable when difference in range of the 95% CI of the classifier or biomarker disclosed herein is about 0.70, 0.60, 0.50, 0.40, 0.30, 0.20, 0.15, 0.14, 0.13, 0.12, 0.10, 0.09, 0.08, 0.07, 0.06, 0.05, 0.04, 0.03, 0.02 times less than the difference in range of the 95% CI of the current classifier or clinical variable. The classifier or biomarker disclosed herein is more accurate than a current classifier or clinical variable when difference in range of the 95% CI of the classifier or biomarker disclosed herein between about 0.20 to about 0.04 times less than the difference in range of the 95% CI of the current classifier or clinical variable.
In some instances, the methods disclosed herein may comprise the use of a genomic classifier (GC) model. A general method for developing a GC model may comprise (a) providing a sample from a subject suffering from a cancer; (b) assaying the expression level for a plurality of targets; (c) generating a model by using a machine learning algorithm. In some instances, the machine learning algorithm comprises Random Forests. In another example, a GC model may developed by using a machine learning algorithm to analyze and rank genomic features. Analyzing the genomic features may comprise classifying one or more genomic features. The method may further comprise validating the classifier and/or refining the classifier by using a machine learning algorithm.
The methods disclosed herein may comprise generating one or more clinical classifiers (CC). The clinical classifier can be developed using one or more clinicopathologic variables. The clinicopathologic variables may be selected from the group comprising Lymph node invasion status (LNI); Surgical Margin Status (SMS); Seminal Vesicle Invasion (SVI); Extra Capsular Extension (ECE); Pathological Gleason Score; and the pre-operative PSA. The method may comprise using one or more of the clinicopathologic variables as binary variables. Alternatively, or additionally, the one or more clinicopathologic variables may be converted to a logarithmic value (e.g., log 10). The method may further comprise assembling the variables in a logistic regression. In some instances, the CC is combined with the GC to produce a genomic clinical classifier (GCC).
In some instances, the methods disclosed herein may comprise the use of a genomic-clinical classifier (GCC) model. A general method for developing a GCC model may comprise (a) providing a sample from a subject suffering from a cancer; (b) assaying the expression level for a plurality of targets; (c) generating a model by using a machine learning algorithm. In some instances, the machine learning algorithm comprises Random Forests.
Cancer
The systems, compositions and methods disclosed herein may be used to diagnosis, monitor and/or predict the status or outcome of a cancer. Generally, a cancer is characterized by the uncontrolled growth of abnormal cells anywhere in a body. The abnormal cells may be termed cancer cells, malignant cells, or tumor cells. Many cancers and the abnormal cells that compose the cancer tissue are further identified by the name of the tissue that the abnormal cells originated from (for example, breast cancer, lung cancer, colon cancer, prostate cancer, pancreatic cancer, thyroid cancer). Cancer is not confined to humans; animals and other living organisms can get cancer.
In some instances, the cancer may be malignant. Alternatively, the cancer may be benign. The cancer may be a recurrent and/or refractory cancer. Most cancers can be classified as a carcinoma, sarcoma, leukemia, lymphoma, myeloma, or a central nervous system cancer.
The cancer may be a sarcoma. Sarcomas are cancers of the bone, cartilage, fat, muscle, blood vessels, or other connective or supportive tissue. Sarcomas include, but are not limited to, bone cancer, fibrosarcoma, chondrosarcoma, Ewing's sarcoma, malignant hemangioendothelioma, malignant schwannoma, bilateral vestibular schwannoma, osteosarcoma, soft tissue sarcomas (e.g. alveolar soft part. sarcoma, angiosarcoma, cystosarcoma phylloides, dermatofibrosarcoma, desmoid tumor, epithelioid sarcoma, extraskeletal osteosarcoma, fibrosarcoma, hemangiopericytoma, hemangiosarcoma, Kaposi's sarcoma, leiomyosarcoma, liposarcoma, lymphangiosarcoma, lymphosarcoma, malignant fibrous histiocytoma, neurofibrosarcoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, and synovial sarcoma).
Alternatively, the cancer may be a carcinoma. Carcinomas are cancers that begin in the epithelial cells, which are cells that cover the surface of the body, produce hormones, and make up glands. By way of non-limiting example, carcinomas include breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, lung cancer, colon cancer, colorectal cancer, rectal cancer, kidney cancer, bladder cancer, stomach cancer, prostate cancer, liver cancer, ovarian cancer, brain cancer, vaginal cancer, vulvar cancer, uterine cancer, oral cancer, penic cancer, testicular cancer, esophageal cancer, skin cancer, cancer of the fallopian tubes, head and neck cancer, gastrointestinal stromal cancer, adenocarcinoma, cutaneous or intraocular melanoma, cancer of the anal region, cancer of the small intestine, cancer of the endocrine system, cancer of the thyroid gland, cancer of the parathyroid gland, cancer of the adrenal gland, cancer of the urethra, cancer of the renal pelvis, cancer of the ureter, cancer of the endometrium, cancer of the cervix, cancer of the pituitary gland, neoplasms of the central nervous system (CNS), primary CNS lymphoma, brain stem glioma, and spinal axis tumors. In some instances, the cancer is a skin cancer, such as a basal cell carcinoma, squamous, melanoma, nonmelanoma, or actinic (solar) keratosis. Preferably, the cancer is a prostate cancer. Alternatively, the cancer may be a thyroid cancer, bladder cancer, or pancreatic cancer.
In some instances, the cancer is a lung cancer. Lung cancer can start in the airways that branch off the trachea to supply the lungs (bronchi) or the small air sacs of the lung (the alveoli). Lung cancers include non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC), small cell lung carcinoma, and mesotheliomia. Examples of NSCLC include squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, and large cell carcinoma. The mesothelioma may be a cancerous tumor of the lining of the lung and chest cavitity (pleura) or lining of the abdomen (peritoneum). The mesothelioma may be due to asbestos exposure. The cancer may be a brain cancer, such as a glioblastoma.
Alternatively, the cancer may be a central nervous system (CNS) tumor. CNS tumors may be classified as gliomas or nongliomas. The glioma may be malignant glioma, high grade glioma, diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma. Examples of gliomas include astrocytomas, oligodendrogliomas (or mixtures of oligodendroglioma and astocytoma elements), and ependymomas. Astrocytomas include, but are not limited to, low-grade astrocytomas, anaplastic astrocytomas, glioblastoma multiforme, pilocytic astrocytoma, pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma, and subependymal giant cell astrocytoma. Oligodendrogliomas include low-grade oligodendrogliomas (or oligoastrocytomas) and anaplastic oligodendriogliomas. Nongliomas include meningiomas, pituitary adenomas, primary CNS lymphomas, and medulloblastomas. In some instances, the cancer is a meningioma.
The cancer may be a leukemia. The leukemia may be an acute lymphocytic leukemia, acute myelocytic leukemia, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, or chronic myelocytic leukemia. Additional types of leukemias include hairy cell leukemia, chronic myelomonocytic leukemia, and juvenile myelomonocytic-leukemia.
In some instances, the cancer is a lymphoma. Lymphomas are cancers of the lymphocytes and may develop from either B or T lymphocytes. The two major types of lymphoma are Hodgkin's lymphoma, previously known as Hodgkin's disease, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Hodgkin's lymphoma is marked by the presence of the Reed-Sternberg cell. Non-Hodgkin's lymphomas are all lymphomas which are not Hodgkin's lymphoma. Non-Hodgkin lymphomas may be indolent lymphomas and aggressive lymphomas. Non-Hodgkin's lymphomas include, but are not limited to, diffuse large B cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, mucosa-associated lymphatic tissue lymphoma (MALT), small cell lymphocytic lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, Burkitt's lymphoma, mediastinal large B cell lymphoma, Waldenström macroglobulinemia, nodal marginal zone B cell lymphoma (NMZL), splenic marginal zone lymphoma (SMZL), extranodal marginal zone B cell lymphoma, intravascular large B cell lymphoma, primary effusion lymphoma, and lymphomatoid granulomatosis.
Cancer Staging
Diagnosing, predicting, or monitoring a status or outcome of a cancer may comprise determining the stage of the cancer. Generally, the stage of a cancer is a description (usually numbers I to IV with IV having more progression) of the extent the cancer has spread. The stage often takes into account the size of a tumor, how deeply it has penetrated, whether it has invaded adjacent organs, how many lymph nodes it has metastasized to (if any), and whether it has spread to distant organs. Staging of cancer can be used as a predictor of survival, and cancer treatment may be determined by staging. Determining the stage of the cancer may occur before, during, or after treatment. The stage of the cancer may also be determined at the time of diagnosis.
Cancer staging can be divided into a clinical stage and a pathologic stage. Cancer staging may comprise the TNM classification. Generally, the TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours (TNM) is a cancer staging system that describes the extent of cancer in a patient's body. T may describe the size of the tumor and whether it has invaded nearby tissue, N may describe regional lymph nodes that are involved, and M may describe distant metastasis (spread of cancer from one body part to another). In the TNM (Tumor, Node, Metastasis) system, clinical stage and pathologic stage are denoted by a small “c” or “p” before the stage (e.g., cT3N1M0 or pT2N0).
Often, clinical stage and pathologic stage may differ. Clinical stage may be based on all of the available information obtained before a surgery to remove the tumor. Thus, it may include information about the tumor obtained by physical examination, radiologic examination, and endoscopy. Pathologic stage can add additional information gained by examination of the tumor microscopically by a pathologist. Pathologic staging can allow direct examination of the tumor and its spread, contrasted with clinical staging which may be limited by the fact that the information is obtained by making indirect observations at a tumor which is still in the body. The TNM staging system can be used for most forms of cancer.
Alternatively, staging may comprise Ann Arbor staging. Generally, Ann Arbor staging is the staging system for lymphomas, both in Hodgkin's lymphoma (previously called Hodgkin's disease) and Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (abbreviated NHL). The stage may depend on both the place where the malignant tissue is located (as located with biopsy, CT scanning and increasingly positron emission tomography) and on systemic symptoms due to the lymphoma (“B symptoms”: night sweats, weight loss of >10% or fevers). The principal stage may be determined by location of the tumor. Stage I may indicate that the cancer is located in a single region, usually one lymph node and the surrounding area. Stage I often may not have outward symptoms. Stage II can indicate that the cancer is located in two separate regions, an affected lymph node or organ and a second affected area, and that both affected areas are confined to one side of the diaphragm—that is, both are above the diaphragm, or both are below the diaphragm. Stage III often indicates that the cancer has spread to both sides of the diaphragm, including one organ or area near the lymph nodes or the spleen. Stage IV may indicate diffuse or disseminated involvement of one or more extralymphatic organs, including any involvement of the liver, bone marrow, or nodular involvement of the lungs.
Modifiers may also be appended to some stages. For example, the letters A, B, E, X, or S can be appended to some stages. Generally, A or B may indicate the absence of constitutional (B-type) symptoms is denoted by adding an “A” to the stage; the presence is denoted by adding a “B” to the stage. E can be used if the disease is “extranodal” (not in the lymph nodes) or has spread from lymph nodes to adjacent tissue. X is often used if the largest deposit is >10 cm large (“bulky disease”), or whether the mediastinum is wider than ⅓ of the chest on a chest X-ray. S may be used if the disease has spread to the spleen.
The nature of the staging may be expressed with CS or PS. CS may denote that the clinical stage as obtained by doctor's examinations and tests. PS may denote that the pathological stage as obtained by exploratory laparotomy (surgery performed through an abdominal incision) with splenectomy (surgical removal of the spleen).
Therapeutic Regimens
Diagnosing, predicting, or monitoring a status or outcome of a cancer may comprise treating a cancer or preventing a cancer progression. In addition, diagnosing, predicting, or monitoring a status or outcome of a cancer may comprise identifying or predicting responders to an anti-cancer therapy. In some instances, diagnosing, predicting, or monitoring may comprise determining a therapeutic regimen. Determining a therapeutic regimen may comprise administering an anti-cancer therapy. Alternatively, determining a therapeutic regimen may comprise modifying, recommending, continuing or discontinuing an anti-cancer regimen. In some instances, if the sample expression patterns are consistent with the expression pattern for a known disease or disease outcome, the expression patterns can be used to designate one or more treatment modalities (e.g., therapeutic regimens, anti-cancer regimen). An anti-cancer regimen may comprise one or more anti-cancer therapies. Examples of anti-cancer therapies include surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, immunotherapy/biological therapy, photodynamic therapy.
Surgical oncology uses surgical methods to diagnose, stage, and treat cancer, and to relieve certain cancer-related symptoms. Surgery may be used to remove the tumor (e.g., excisions, resections, debulking surgery), reconstruct a part of the body (e.g., restorative surgery), and/or to relieve symptoms such as pain (e.g., palliative surgery). Surgery may also include cryosurgery. Cryosurgery (also called cryotherapy) may use extreme cold produced by liquid nitrogen (or argon gas) to destroy abnormal tissue. Cryosurgery can be used to treat external tumors, such as those on the skin. For external tumors, liquid nitrogen can be applied directly to the cancer cells with a cotton swab or spraying device. Cryosurgery may also be used to treat tumors inside the body (internal tumors and tumors in the bone). For internal tumors, liquid nitrogen or argon gas may be circulated through a hollow instrument called a cryoprobe, which is placed in contact with the tumor. An ultrasound or MRI may be used to guide the cryoprobe and monitor the freezing of the cells, thus limiting damage to nearby healthy tissue. A ball of ice crystals may form around the probe, freezing nearby cells. Sometimes more than one probe is used to deliver the liquid nitrogen to various parts of the tumor. The probes may be put into the tumor during surgery or through the skin (percutaneously). After cryosurgery, the frozen tissue thaws and may be naturally absorbed by the body (for internal tumors), or may dissolve and form a scab (for external tumors).
Chemotherapeutic agents may also be used for the treatment of cancer. Examples of chemotherapeutic agents include alkylating agents, anti-metabolites, plant alkaloids and terpenoids, vinca alkaloids, podophyllotoxin, taxanes, topoisomerase inhibitors, and cytotoxic antibiotics. Cisplatin, carboplatin, and oxaliplatin are examples of alkylating agents. Other alkylating agents include mechlorethamine, cyclophosphamide, chlorambucil, ifosfamide. Alkylating agents may impair cell function by forming covalent bonds with the amino, carboxyl, sulfhydryl, and phosphate groups in biologically important molecules. Alternatively, alkylating agents may chemically modify a cell's DNA.
Anti-metabolites are another example of chemotherapeutic agents. Anti-metabolites may masquerade as purines or pyrimidines and may prevent purines and pyrimidines from becoming incorporated in to DNA during the “S” phase (of the cell cycle), thereby stopping normal development and division. Antimetabolites may also affect RNA synthesis. Examples of metabolites include azathioprine and mercaptopurine.
Alkaloids may be derived from plants and block cell division may also be used for the treatment of cancer. Alkyloids may prevent microtubule function. Examples of alkaloids are vinca alkaloids and taxanes. Vinca alkaloids may bind to specific sites on tubulin and inhibit the assembly of tubulin into microtubules (M phase of the cell cycle). The vinca alkaloids may be derived from the Madagascar periwinkle, Catharanthus roseus (formerly known as Vinca rosea). Examples of vinca alkaloids include, but are not limited to, vincristine, vinblastine, vinorelbine, or vindesine. Taxanes are diterpenes produced by the plants of the genus Taxus (yews). Taxanes may be derived from natural sources or synthesized artificially. Taxanes include paclitaxel (Taxol) and docetaxel (Taxotere). Taxanes may disrupt microtubule function. Microtubules are essential to cell division, and taxanes may stabilize GDP-bound tubulin in the microtubule, thereby inhibiting the process of cell division. Thus, in essence, taxanes may be mitotic inhibitors. Taxanes may also be radiosensitizing and often contain numerous chiral centers.
Alternative chemotherapeutic agents include podophyllotoxin. Podophyllotoxin is a plant-derived compound that may help with digestion and may be used to produce cytostatic drugs such as etoposide and teniposide. They may prevent the cell from entering the G1 phase (the start of DNA replication) and the replication of DNA (the S phase).
Topoisomerases are essential enzymes that maintain the topology of DNA. Inhibition of type I or type II topoisomerases may interfere with both transcription and replication of DNA by upsetting proper DNA supercoiling. Some chemotherapeutic agents may inhibit topoisomerases. For example, some type I topoisomerase inhibitors include camptothecins: irinotecan and topotecan. Examples of type II inhibitors include amsacrine, etoposide, etoposide phosphate, and teniposide.
Another example of chemotherapeutic agents is cytotoxic antibiotics. Cytotoxic antibiotics are a group of antibiotics that are used for the treatment of cancer because they may interfere with DNA replication and/or protein synthesis. Cytotoxic antibiotics include, but are not limited to, actinomycin, anthracyclines, doxorubicin, daunorubicin, valrubicin, idarubicin, epirubicin, bleomycin, plicamycin, and mitomycin.
In some instances, the anti-cancer treatment may comprise radiation therapy. Radiation can come from a machine outside the body (external-beam radiation therapy) or from radioactive material placed in the body near cancer cells (internal radiation therapy, more commonly called brachytherapy). Systemic radiation therapy uses a radioactive substance, given by mouth or into a vein that travels in the blood to tissues throughout the body.
External-beam radiation therapy may be delivered in the form of photon beams (either x-rays or gamma rays). A photon is the basic unit of light and other forms of electromagnetic radiation. An example of external-beam radiation therapy is called 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT). 3D-CRT may use computer software and advanced treatment machines to deliver radiation to very precisely shaped target areas. Many other methods of external-beam radiation therapy are currently being tested and used in cancer treatment. These methods include, but are not limited to, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT), Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), and proton therapy.
Intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is an example of external-beam radiation and may use hundreds of tiny radiation beam-shaping devices, called collimators, to deliver a single dose of radiation. The collimators can be stationary or can move during treatment, allowing the intensity of the radiation beams to change during treatment sessions. This kind of dose modulation allows different areas of a tumor or nearby tissues to receive different doses of radiation. IMRT is planned in reverse (called inverse treatment planning). In inverse treatment planning, the radiation doses to different areas of the tumor and surrounding tissue are planned in advance, and then a high-powered computer program calculates the required number of beams and angles of the radiation treatment. In contrast, during traditional (forward) treatment planning, the number and angles of the radiation beams are chosen in advance and computers calculate how much dose may be delivered from each of the planned beams. The goal of IMRT is to increase the radiation dose to the areas that need it and reduce radiation exposure to specific sensitive areas of surrounding normal tissue.
Another example of external-beam radiation is image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT). In IGRT, repeated imaging scans (CT, MRI, or PET) may be performed during treatment. These imaging scans may be processed by computers to identify changes in a tumor's size and location due to treatment and to allow the position of the patient or the planned radiation dose to be adjusted during treatment as needed. Repeated imaging can increase the accuracy of radiation treatment and may allow reductions in the planned volume of tissue to be treated, thereby decreasing the total radiation dose to normal tissue.
Tomotherapy is a type of image-guided IMRT. A tomotherapy machine is a hybrid between a CT imaging scanner and an external-beam radiation therapy machine. The part of the tomotherapy machine that delivers radiation for both imaging and treatment can rotate completely around the patient in the same manner as a normal CT scanner. Tomotherapy machines can capture CT images of the patient's tumor immediately before treatment sessions, to allow for very precise tumor targeting and sparing of normal tissue.
Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) can deliver one or more high doses of radiation to a small tumor. SRS uses extremely accurate image-guided tumor targeting and patient positioning. Therefore, a high dose of radiation can be given without excess damage to normal tissue. SRS can be used to treat small tumors with well-defined edges. It is most commonly used in the treatment of brain or spinal tumors and brain metastases from other cancer types. For the treatment of some brain metastases, patients may receive radiation therapy to the entire brain (called whole-brain radiation therapy) in addition to SRS. SRS requires the use of a head frame or other device to immobilize the patient during treatment to ensure that the high dose of radiation is delivered accurately.
Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) delivers radiation therapy in fewer sessions, using smaller radiation fields and higher doses than 3D-CRT in most cases. SBRT may treat tumors that lie outside the brain and spinal cord. Because these tumors are more likely to move with the normal motion of the body, and therefore cannot be targeted as accurately as tumors within the brain or spine, SBRT is usually given in more than one dose. SBRT can be used to treat small, isolated tumors, including cancers in the lung and liver. SBRT systems may be known by their brand names, such as the CyberKnife®.
In proton therapy, external-beam radiation therapy may be delivered by proton. Protons are a type of charged particle. Proton beams differ from photon beams mainly in the way they deposit energy in living tissue. Whereas photons deposit energy in small packets all along their path through tissue, protons deposit much of their energy at the end of their path (called the Bragg peak) and deposit less energy along the way. Use of protons may reduce the exposure of normal tissue to radiation, possibly allowing the delivery of higher doses of radiation to a tumor.
Other charged particle beams such as electron beams may be used to irradiate superficial tumors, such as skin cancer or tumors near the surface of the body, but they cannot travel very far through tissue.
Internal radiation therapy (brachytherapy) is radiation delivered from radiation sources (radioactive materials) placed inside or on the body. Several brachytherapy techniques are used in cancer treatment. Interstitial brachytherapy may use a radiation source placed within tumor tissue, such as within a prostate tumor. Intracavitary brachytherapy may use a source placed within a surgical cavity or a body cavity, such as the chest cavity, near a tumor. Episcleral brachytherapy, which may be used to treat melanoma inside the eye, may use a source that is attached to the eye. In brachytherapy, radioactive isotopes can be sealed in tiny pellets or “seeds.” These seeds may be placed in patients using delivery devices, such as needles, catheters, or some other type of carrier. As the isotopes decay naturally, they give off radiation that may damage nearby cancer cells. Brachytherapy may be able to deliver higher doses of radiation to some cancers than external-beam radiation therapy while causing less damage to normal tissue.
Brachytherapy can be given as a low-dose-rate or a high-dose-rate treatment. In low-dose-rate treatment, cancer cells receive continuous low-dose radiation from the source over a period of several days. In high-dose-rate treatment, a robotic machine attached to delivery tubes placed inside the body may guide one or more radioactive sources into or near a tumor, and then removes the sources at the end of each treatment session. High-dose-rate treatment can be given in one or more treatment sessions. An example of a high-dose-rate treatment is the MammoSite® system. Bracytherapy may be used to treat patients with breast cancer who have undergone breast-conserving surgery.
The placement of brachytherapy sources can be temporary or permanent. For permanent brachytherapy, the sources may be surgically sealed within the body and left there, even after all of the radiation has been given off. In some instances, the remaining material (in which the radioactive isotopes were sealed) does not cause any discomfort or harm to the patient. Permanent brachytherapy is a type of low-dose-rate brachytherapy. For temporary brachytherapy, tubes (catheters) or other carriers are used to deliver the radiation sources, and both the carriers and the radiation sources are removed after treatment. Temporary brachytherapy can be either low-dose-rate or high-dose-rate treatment. Brachytherapy may be used alone or in addition to external-beam radiation therapy to provide a “boost” of radiation to a tumor while sparing surrounding normal tissue.
In systemic radiation therapy, a patient may swallow or receive an injection of a radioactive substance, such as radioactive iodine or a radioactive substance bound to a monoclonal antibody. Radioactive iodine (131I) is a type of systemic radiation therapy commonly used to help treat cancer, such as thyroid cancer. Thyroid cells naturally take up radioactive iodine. For systemic radiation therapy for some other types of cancer, a monoclonal antibody may help target the radioactive substance to the right place. The antibody joined to the radioactive substance travels through the blood, locating and killing tumor cells. For example, the drug ibritumomab tiuxetan (Zevalin®) may be used for the treatment of certain types of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). The antibody part of this drug recognizes and binds to a protein found on the surface of B lymphocytes. The combination drug regimen of tositumomab and iodine I 131 tositumomab (Bexxar®) may be used for the treatment of certain types of cancer, such as NHL. In this regimen, nonradioactive tositumomab antibodies may be given to patients first, followed by treatment with tositumomab antibodies that have 131I attached. Tositumomab may recognize and bind to the same protein on B lymphocytes as ibritumomab. The nonradioactive form of the antibody may help protect normal B lymphocytes from being damaged by radiation from 131I.
Some systemic radiation therapy drugs relieve pain from cancer that has spread to the bone (bone metastases). This is a type of palliative radiation therapy. The radioactive drugs samarium-153-lexidronam (Quadramet®) and strontium-89 chloride (Metastron®) are examples of radiopharmaceuticals may be used to treat pain from bone metastases.
Biological therapy (sometimes called immunotherapy, biotherapy, or biological response modifier (BRM) therapy) uses the body's immune system, either directly or indirectly, to fight cancer or to lessen the side effects that may be caused by some cancer treatments. Biological therapies include interferons, interleukins, colony-stimulating factors, monoclonal antibodies, vaccines, gene therapy, and nonspecific immunomodulating agents.
Interferons (IFNs) are types of cytokines that occur naturally in the body. Interferon alpha, interferon beta, and interferon gamma are examples of interferons that may be used in cancer treatment.
Like interferons, interleukins (ILs) are cytokines that occur naturally in the body and can be made in the laboratory. Many interleukins have been identified for the treatment of cancer. For example, interleukin-2 (IL-2 or aldesleukin), interleukin 7, and interleukin 12 have may be used as an anti-cancer treatment. IL-2 may stimulate the growth and activity of many immune cells, such as lymphocytes, that can destroy cancer cells. Interleukins may be used to treat a number of cancers, including leukemia, lymphoma, and brain, colorectal, ovarian, breast, kidney and prostate cancers.
Colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) (sometimes called hematopoietic growth factors) may also be used for the treatment of cancer. Some examples of CSFs include, but are not limited to, G-CSF (filgrastim) and GM-CSF (sargramostim). CSFs may promote the division of bone marrow stem cells and their development into white blood cells, platelets, and red blood cells. Bone marrow is critical to the body's immune system because it is the source of all blood cells. Because anticancer drugs can damage the body's ability to make white blood cells, red blood cells, and platelets, stimulation of the immune system by CSFs may benefit patients undergoing other anti-cancer treatment, thus CSFs may be combined with other anti-cancer therapies, such as chemotherapy. CSFs may be used to treat a large variety of cancers, including lymphoma, leukemia, multiple myeloma, melanoma, and cancers of the brain, lung, esophagus, breast, uterus, ovary, prostate, kidney, colon, and rectum.
Another type of biological therapy includes monoclonal antibodies (MOABs or MoABs). These antibodies may be produced by a single type of cell and may be specific for a particular antigen. To create MOABs, a human cancer cells may be injected into mice. In response, the mouse immune system can make antibodies against these cancer cells. The mouse plasma cells that produce antibodies may be isolated and fused with laboratory-grown cells to create “hybrid” cells called hybridomas. Hybridomas can indefinitely produce large quantities of these pure antibodies, or MOABs. MOABs may be used in cancer treatment in a number of ways. For instance, MOABs that react with specific types of cancer may enhance a patient's immune response to the cancer. MOABs can be programmed to act against cell growth factors, thus interfering with the growth of cancer cells.
MOABs may be linked to other anti-cancer therapies such as chemotherapeutics, radioisotopes (radioactive substances), other biological therapies, or other toxins. When the antibodies latch onto cancer cells, they deliver these anti-cancer therapies directly to the tumor, helping to destroy it. MOABs carrying radioisotopes may also prove useful in diagnosing certain cancers, such as colorectal, ovarian, and prostate.
Rituxan® (rituximab) and Herceptin® (trastuzumab) are examples of MOABs that may be used as a biological therapy. Rituxan may be used for the treatment of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Herceptin can be used to treat metastatic breast cancer in patients with tumors that produce excess amounts of a protein called HER2. Alternatively, MOABs may be used to treat lymphoma, leukemia, melanoma, and cancers of the brain, breast, lung, kidney, colon, rectum, ovary, prostate, and other areas.
Cancer vaccines are another form of biological therapy. Cancer vaccines may be designed to encourage the patient's immune system to recognize cancer cells. Cancer vaccines may be designed to treat existing cancers (therapeutic vaccines) or to prevent the development of cancer (prophylactic vaccines). Therapeutic vaccines may be injected in a person after cancer is diagnosed. These vaccines may stop the growth of existing tumors, prevent cancer from recurring, or eliminate cancer cells not killed by prior treatments. Cancer vaccines given when the tumor is small may be able to eradicate the cancer. On the other hand, prophylactic vaccines are given to healthy individuals before cancer develops. These vaccines are designed to stimulate the immune system to attack viruses that can cause cancer. By targeting these cancer-causing viruses, development of certain cancers may be prevented. For example, cervarix and gardasil are vaccines to treat human papilloma virus and may prevent cervical cancer. Therapeutic vaccines may be used to treat melanoma, lymphoma, leukemia, and cancers of the brain, breast, lung, kidney, ovary, prostate, pancreas, colon, and rectum. Cancer vaccines can be used in combination with other anti-cancer therapies.
Gene therapy is another example of a biological therapy. Gene therapy may involve introducing genetic material into a person's cells to fight disease. Gene therapy methods may improve a patient's immune response to cancer. For example, a gene may be inserted into an immune cell to enhance its ability to recognize and attack cancer cells. In another approach, cancer cells may be injected with genes that cause the cancer cells to produce cytokines and stimulate the immune system.
In some instances, biological therapy includes nonspecific immunomodulating agents. Nonspecific immunomodulating agents are substances that stimulate or indirectly augment the immune system. Often, these agents target key immune system cells and may cause secondary responses such as increased production of cytokines and immunoglobulins. Two nonspecific immunomodulating agents used in cancer treatment are bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) and levamisole. BCG may be used in the treatment of superficial bladder cancer following surgery. BCG may work by stimulating an inflammatory, and possibly an immune, response. A solution of BCG may be instilled in the bladder. Levamisole is sometimes used along with fluorouracil (5-FU) chemotherapy in the treatment of stage III (Dukes' C) colon cancer following surgery. Levamisole may act to restore depressed immune function.
Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is an anti-cancer treatment that may use a drug, called a photosensitizer or photosensitizing agent, and a particular type of light. When photosensitizers are exposed to a specific wavelength of light, they may produce a form of oxygen that kills nearby cells. A photosensitizer may be activated by light of a specific wavelength. This wavelength determines how far the light can travel into the body. Thus, photosensitizers and wavelengths of light may be used to treat different areas of the body with PDT.
In the first step of PDT for cancer treatment, a photosensitizing agent may be injected into the bloodstream. The agent may be absorbed by cells all over the body but may stay in cancer cells longer than it does in normal cells. Approximately 24 to 72 hours after injection, when most of the agent has left normal cells but remains in cancer cells, the tumor can be exposed to light. The photosensitizer in the tumor can absorb the light and produces an active form of oxygen that destroys nearby cancer cells. In addition to directly killing cancer cells, PDT may shrink or destroy tumors in two other ways. The photosensitizer can damage blood vessels in the tumor, thereby preventing the cancer from receiving necessary nutrients. PDT may also activate the immune system to attack the tumor cells.
The light used for PDT can come from a laser or other sources. Laser light can be directed through fiber optic cables (thin fibers that transmit light) to deliver light to areas inside the body. For example, a fiber optic cable can be inserted through an endoscope (a thin, lighted tube used to look at tissues inside the body) into the lungs or esophagus to treat cancer in these organs. Other light sources include light-emitting diodes (LEDs), which may be used for surface tumors, such as skin cancer. PDT is usually performed as an outpatient procedure. PDT may also be repeated and may be used with other therapies, such as surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy.
Extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) is a type of PDT in which a machine may be used to collect the patient's blood cells. The patient's blood cells may be treated outside the body with a photosensitizing agent, exposed to light, and then returned to the patient. ECP may be used to help lessen the severity of skin symptoms of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma that has not responded to other therapies. ECP may be used to treat other blood cancers, and may also help reduce rejection after transplants.
Additionally, photosensitizing agent, such as porfimer sodium or Photofrin®, may be used in PDT to treat or relieve the symptoms of esophageal cancer and non-small cell lung cancer. Porfimer sodium may relieve symptoms of esophageal cancer when the cancer obstructs the esophagus or when the cancer cannot be satisfactorily treated with laser therapy alone. Porfimer sodium may be used to treat non-small cell lung cancer in patients for whom the usual treatments are not appropriate, and to relieve symptoms in patients with non-small cell lung cancer that obstructs the airways. Porfimer sodium may also be used for the treatment of precancerous lesions in patients with Barrett esophagus, a condition that can lead to esophageal cancer.
Laser therapy may use high-intensity light to treat cancer and other illnesses. Lasers can be used to shrink or destroy tumors or precancerous growths. Lasers are most commonly used to treat superficial cancers (cancers on the surface of the body or the lining of internal organs) such as basal cell skin cancer and the very early stages of some cancers, such as cervical, penile, vaginal, vulvar, and non-small cell lung cancer.
Lasers may also be used to relieve certain symptoms of cancer, such as bleeding or obstruction. For example, lasers can be used to shrink or destroy a tumor that is blocking a patient's trachea (windpipe) or esophagus. Lasers also can be used to remove colon polyps or tumors that are blocking the colon or stomach.
Laser therapy is often given through a flexible endoscope (a thin, lighted tube used to look at tissues inside the body). The endoscope is fitted with optical fibers (thin fibers that transmit light). It is inserted through an opening in the body, such as the mouth, nose, anus, or vagina. Laser light is then precisely aimed to cut or destroy a tumor.
Laser-induced interstitial thermotherapy (LITT), or interstitial laser photocoagulation, also uses lasers to treat some cancers. LITT is similar to a cancer treatment called hyperthermia, which uses heat to shrink tumors by damaging or killing cancer cells. During LITT, an optical fiber is inserted into a tumor. Laser light at the tip of the fiber raises the temperature of the tumor cells and damages or destroys them. LITT is sometimes used to shrink tumors in the liver.
Laser therapy can be used alone, but most often it is combined with other treatments, such as surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation therapy. In addition, lasers can seal nerve endings to reduce pain after surgery and seal lymph vessels to reduce swelling and limit the spread of tumor cells.
Lasers used to treat cancer may include carbon dioxide (CO2) lasers, argon lasers, and neodymium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Nd:YAG) lasers. Each of these can shrink or destroy tumors and can be used with endoscopes. CO2 and argon lasers can cut the skin's surface without going into deeper layers. Thus, they can be used to remove superficial cancers, such as skin cancer. In contrast, the Nd:YAG laser is more commonly applied through an endoscope to treat internal organs, such as the uterus, esophagus, and colon. Nd:YAG laser light can also travel through optical fibers into specific areas of the body during LITT. Argon lasers are often used to activate the drugs used in PDT.
For patients with high test scores consistent with systemic disease outcome after prostatectomy, additional treatment modalities such as adjuvant chemotherapy (e.g., docetaxel, mitoxantrone and prednisone), systemic radiation therapy (e.g., samarium or strontium) and/or anti-androgen therapy (e.g., surgical castration, finasteride, dutasteride) can be designated. Such patients would likely be treated immediately with anti-androgen therapy alone or in combination with radiation therapy in order to eliminate presumed micro-metastatic disease, which cannot be detected clinically but can be revealed by the target sequence expression signature.
Such patients can also be more closely monitored for signs of disease progression. For patients with intermediate test scores consistent with biochemical recurrence only (BCR-only or elevated PSA that does not rapidly become manifested as systemic disease only localized adjuvant therapy (e.g., radiation therapy of the prostate bed) or short course of anti-androgen therapy would likely be administered. For patients with low scores or scores consistent with no evidence of disease (NED) adjuvant therapy would not likely be recommended by their physicians in order to avoid treatment-related side effects such as metabolic syndrome (e.g., hypertension, diabetes and/or weight gain), osteoporosis, proctitis, incontinence or impotence. Patients with samples consistent with NED could be designated for watchful waiting, or for no treatment. Patients with test scores that do not correlate with systemic disease but who have successive PSA increases could be designated for watchful waiting, increased monitoring, or lower dose or shorter duration anti-androgen therapy.
Target sequences can be grouped so that information obtained about the set of target sequences in the group can be used to make or assist in making a clinically relevant judgment such as a diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment choice.
A patient report is also provided comprising a representation of measured expression levels of a plurality of target sequences in a biological sample from the patient, wherein the representation comprises expression levels of target sequences corresponding to any one, two, three, four, five, six, eight, ten, twenty, thirty, fifty or more of the target sequences corresponding to a target selected from any of Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55, or of the subsets described herein, or of a combination thereof. In some instances, the target is selected from Table 2. In other instances, the target is selected from Table 4. In some embodiments, the target is selected from Table 11. In some embodiments, the representation of the measured expression level(s) may take the form of a linear or nonlinear combination of expression levels of the target sequences of interest. The patient report may be provided in a machine (e.g., a computer) readable format and/or in a hard (paper) copy. The report can also include standard measurements of expression levels of said plurality of target sequences from one or more sets of patients with known disease status and/or outcome. The report can be used to inform the patient and/or treating physician of the expression levels of the expressed target sequences, the likely medical diagnosis and/or implications, and optionally may recommend a treatment modality for the patient.
Also provided are representations of the gene expression profiles useful for treating, diagnosing, prognosticating, and otherwise assessing disease. In some embodiments, these profile representations are reduced to a medium that can be automatically read by a machine such as computer readable media (magnetic, optical, and the like). The articles can also include instructions for assessing the gene expression profiles in such media. For example, the articles may comprise a readable storage form having computer instructions for comparing gene expression profiles of the portfolios of genes described above. The articles may also have gene expression profiles digitally recorded therein so that they may be compared with gene expression data from patient samples. Alternatively, the profiles can be recorded in different representational format. A graphical recordation is one such format. Clustering algorithms can assist in the visualization of such data.
Disclosed herein, in some embodiments, is a method for diagnosing, predicting, and/or monitoring a status or outcome of a cancer a subject, comprising: (a) assaying an expression level of a plurality of targets in a sample from the subject, wherein at least one target of the plurality of targets is selected from the group consisting of targets identified in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55; and (b) for diagnosing, predicting, and/or monitoring a status or outcome of a cancer based on the expression levels of the plurality of targets. In some embodiments, the cancer is selected from the group consisting of a carcinoma, sarcoma, leukemia, lymphoma, myeloma, and a CNS tumor. In some embodiments, the cancer is selected from the group consisting of skin cancer, lung cancer, colon cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, liver cancer, thyroid cancer, ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer, kidney cancer, epithelial carcinoma, squamous carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, melanoma, papilloma, and adenomas. In some embodiments, the cancer is a prostate cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a pancreatic cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a thyroid cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a bladder cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a lung cancer. In some embodiments, the method further comprises assaying an expression level of a coding target. In some instances, the coding target is selected from the group consisting of targets identified in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some embodiments, the coding target is an exon-coding transcript. In some embodiments, the exon-coding transcript is an exonic sequence. In some embodiments, the method further comprises assaying an expression level of a non-coding target. In some instances, the non-coding target is selected from the group consisting of targets identified in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some instances, the non-coding target is a non-coding transcript. In other instances, the non-coding target is an intronic sequence. In other instances, the non-coding target is an intergenic sequence. In some instances, the non-coding target is a UTR sequence. In other instances, the non-coding target is a non-coding RNA transcript. In some embodiments, the target comprises a nucleic acid sequence. In some embodiments, the nucleic acid sequence is a DNA sequence. In some embodiments, the nucleic acid sequence is an RNA sequence. In other instances, the target comprises a polypeptide sequence. In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises 2 or more targets selected from the group of targets identified in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises 5 or more targets selected from the group of targets identified in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises 10 or more targets selected from the group of targets identified in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises 15 or more targets selected from the group of targets identified in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises 20 or more targets selected from the group of targets identified in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises 25 or more targets selected from the group of targets identified in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises 30 or more targets selected from the group of targets identified in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises 35 or more targets selected from the group of targets identified in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises 40 or more targets selected from the group of targets identified in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some instances, the target is selected from Table 2. In other instances, the target is selected from Table 4. In some embodiments, the target is selected from Table 11. In some embodiments, assaying the expression level comprises detecting and/or quantifying a nucleotide sequence of the plurality of targets. Alternatively, assaying the expression level comprises detecting and/or quantifying a polypeptide sequence of the plurality of targets. In some embodiments, assaying the expression level comprises detecting and/or quantifying the DNA levels of the plurality of targets. In some embodiments, assaying the expression level comprises detecting and/or quantifying the RNA or mRNA levels of the plurality of targets. In some embodiments, assaying the expression level comprises detecting and/or quantifying the protein level of the plurality of targets. In some embodiments, the diagnosing, predicting, and/or monitoring the status or outcome of a cancer comprises determining the malignancy of the cancer. In some embodiments, the diagnosing, predicting, and/or monitoring the status or outcome of a cancer includes determining the stage of the cancer. In some embodiments, the diagnosing, predicting, and/or monitoring the status or outcome of a cancer includes assessing the risk of cancer recurrence. In some embodiments, diagnosing, predicting, and/or monitoring the status or outcome of a cancer may comprise determining the efficacy of treatment. In some embodiments, diagnosing, predicting, and/or monitoring the status or outcome of a cancer may comprise determining a therapeutic regimen. Determining a therapeutic regimen may comprise administering an anti-cancer therapeutic. Alternatively, determining the treatment for the cancer may comprise modifying a therapeutic regimen. Modifying a therapeutic regimen may comprise increasing, decreasing, or terminating a therapeutic regimen.
Further disclosed, in some embodiments, is method for determining a treatment for a cancer in a subject, comprising: a) assaying an expression level of a plurality of targets in a sample from the subject, wherein at least one target of the plurality of targets is selected from the group consisting of targets identified in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55; and b) determining the treatment for a cancer based on the expression levels of the plurality of targets. In some embodiments, the cancer is selected from the group consisting of a carcinoma, sarcoma, leukemia, lymphoma, myeloma, and a CNS tumor. In some embodiments, the cancer is selected from the group consisting of skin cancer, lung cancer, colon cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, liver cancer, thyroid cancer, ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer, kidney cancer, epithelial carcinoma, squamous carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, melanoma, papilloma, and adenomas. In some embodiments, the cancer is a prostate cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a pancreatic cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a bladder cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a thyroid cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a lung cancer. In some embodiments, the coding target is selected from a sequence listed in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some embodiments, the method further comprises assaying an expression level of a coding target. In some instances, the coding target is selected from the group consisting of targets identified in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some embodiments, the coding target is an exon-coding transcript. In some embodiments, the exon-coding transcript is an exonic sequence. In some embodiments, the method further comprises assaying an expression level of a non-coding target. In some instances, the non-coding target is selected from the group consisting of targets identified in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some instances, the non-coding target is a non-coding transcript. In other instances, the non-coding target is an intronic sequence. In other instances, the non-coding target is an intergenic sequence. In some instances, the non-coding target is a UTR sequence. In other instances, the non-coding target is a non-coding RNA transcript. In some embodiments, the target comprises a nucleic acid sequence. In some embodiments, the nucleic acid sequence is a DNA sequence. In some embodiments, the nucleic acid sequence is an RNA sequence. In other instances, the target comprises a polypeptide sequence. In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises 2 or more targets selected from the group of targets identified in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises 5 or more targets selected from the group of targets identified in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises 10 or more targets selected from the group of targets identified in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises 15 or more targets selected from the group of targets identified in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises 20 or more targets selected from the group of targets identified in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises 25 or more targets selected from the group of targets identified in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises 30 or more targets selected from the group of targets identified in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises 35 or more targets selected from the group of targets identified in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises 40 or more targets selected from the group of targets identified in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some instances, the target is selected from Table 2. In other instances, the target is selected from Table 4. In some embodiments, the target is selected from Table 11. In some embodiments, assaying the expression level comprises detecting and/or quantifying a nucleotide sequence of the plurality of targets. In some embodiments, determining the treatment for the cancer includes determining the efficacy of treatment. Determining the treatment for the cancer may comprise administering an anti-cancer therapeutic. Alternatively, determining the treatment for the cancer may comprise modifying a therapeutic regimen. Modifying a therapeutic regimen may comprise increasing, decreasing, or terminating a therapeutic regimen.
The methods use the probe sets, probes and primers described herein to provide expression signatures or profiles from a test sample derived from a subject having or suspected of having cancer. In some embodiments, such methods involve contacting a test sample with a probe set comprising a plurality of probes under conditions that permit hybridization of the probe(s) to any target nucleic acid(s) present in the test sample and then detecting any probe:target duplexes formed as an indication of the presence of the target nucleic acid in the sample. Expression patterns thus determined are then compared to one or more reference profiles or signatures. Optionally, the expression pattern can be normalized. The methods use the probe sets, probes and primers described herein to provide expression signatures or profiles from a test sample derived from a subject to classify the cancer as recurrent or non-recurrent.
In some embodiments, such methods involve the specific amplification of target sequences nucleic acid(s) present in the test sample using methods known in the art to generate an expression profile or signature which is then compared to a reference profile or signature.
In some embodiments, the invention further provides for prognosing patient outcome, predicting likelihood of recurrence after prostatectomy and/or for designating treatment modalities.
In one embodiment, the methods generate expression profiles or signatures detailing the expression of the target sequences having altered relative expression with different cancer outcomes.
In some embodiments, the methods detect combinations of expression levels of sequences exhibiting positive and negative correlation with a disease status. In one embodiment, the methods detect a minimal expression signature.
The gene expression profiles of each of the target sequences comprising the portfolio can fixed in a medium such as a computer readable medium. This can take a number of forms. For example, a table can be established into which the range of signals (e.g., intensity measurements) indicative of disease or outcome is input. Actual patient data can then be compared to the values in the table to determine the patient samples diagnosis or prognosis. In a more sophisticated embodiment, patterns of the expression signals (e.g., fluorescent intensity) are recorded digitally or graphically.
The expression profiles of the samples can be compared to a control portfolio. The expression profiles can be used to diagnose, predict, or monitor a status or outcome of a cancer. For example, diagnosing, predicting, or monitoring a status or outcome of a cancer may comprise diagnosing or detecting a cancer, cancer metastasis, or stage of a cancer. In other instances, diagnosing, predicting, or monitoring a status or outcome of a cancer may comprise predicting the risk of cancer recurrence. Alternatively, diagnosing, predicting, or monitoring a status or outcome of a cancer may comprise predicting mortality or morbidity.
Further disclosed herein are methods for characterizing a patient population. Generally, the method comprises: (a) providing a sample from a subject; (b) assaying the expression level for a plurality of targets in the sample; and (c) characterizing the subject based on the expression level of the plurality of targets. In some embodiments, the method further comprises assaying an expression level of a coding target. In some instances, the coding target is selected from the group consisting of targets identified in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some embodiments, the coding target is an exon-coding transcript. In some embodiments, the exon-coding transcript is an exonic sequence. In some embodiments, the method further comprises assaying an expression level of a non-coding target. In some instances, the non-coding target is selected from the group consisting of targets identified in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some instances, the non-coding target is a non-coding transcript. In other instances, the non-coding target is an intronic sequence. In other instances, the non-coding target is an intergenic sequence. In some instances, the non-coding target is a UTR sequence. In other instances, the non-coding target is a non-coding RNA transcript. In some embodiments, the target comprises a nucleic acid sequence. In some embodiments, the nucleic acid sequence is a DNA sequence. In some embodiments, the nucleic acid sequence is an RNA sequence. In other instances, the target comprises a polypeptide sequence. In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises 2 or more targets selected from the group of targets identified in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises 5 or more targets selected from the group of targets identified in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises 10 or more targets selected from the group of targets identified in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises 15 or more targets selected from the group of targets identified in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises 20 or more targets selected from the group of targets identified in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises 25 or more targets selected from the group of targets identified in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises 30 or more targets selected from the group of targets identified in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises 35 or more targets selected from the group of targets identified in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises 40 or more targets selected from the group of targets identified in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some instances, the target is selected from Table 2. In other instances, the target is selected from Table 4. In some embodiments, the target is selected from Table 11. In some embodiments, assaying the expression level comprises detecting and/or quantifying a nucleotide sequence of the plurality of targets. In some instances, the method may further comprise diagnosing a cancer in the subject. In some embodiments, the cancer is selected from the group consisting of a carcinoma, sarcoma, leukemia, lymphoma, myeloma, and a CNS tumor. In some embodiments, the cancer is selected from the group consisting of skin cancer, lung cancer, colon cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, liver cancer, thyroid cancer, ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer, kidney cancer, epithelial carcinoma, squamous carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, melanoma, papilloma, and adenomas. In some embodiments, the cancer is a prostate cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a pancreatic cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a bladder cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a thyroid cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a lung cancer. In some instances, characterizing the subject comprises determining whether the subject would respond to an anti-cancer therapy. Alternatively, characterizing the subject comprises identifying the subject as a non-responder to an anti-cancer therapy. Optionally, characterizing the subject comprises identifying the subject as a responder to an anti-cancer therapy.
Further disclosed herein are methods for selecting a subject suffering from a cancer for enrollment into a clinical trial. Generally, the method comprises: (a) providing a sample from a subject; (b) assaying the expression level for a plurality of targets in the sample; and (c) characterizing the subject based on the expression level of the plurality of targets. In some embodiments, the method further comprises assaying an expression level of a coding target. In some instances, the coding target is selected from the group consisting of targets identified in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some embodiments, the coding target is an exon-coding transcript. In some embodiments, the exon-coding transcript is an exonic sequence. In some embodiments, the method further comprises assaying an expression level of a non-coding target. In some instances, the non-coding target is selected from the group consisting of targets identified in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some instances, the non-coding target is a non-coding transcript. In other instances, the non-coding target is an intronic sequence. In other instances, the non-coding target is an intergenic sequence. In some instances, the non-coding target is a UTR sequence. In other instances, the non-coding target is a non-coding RNA transcript. In some embodiments, the target comprises a nucleic acid sequence. In some embodiments, the nucleic acid sequence is a DNA sequence. In some embodiments, the nucleic acid sequence is an RNA sequence. In other instances, the target comprises a polypeptide sequence. In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises 2 or more targets selected from the group of targets identified in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises 5 or more targets selected from the group of targets identified in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises 10 or more targets selected from the group of targets identified in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises 15 or more targets selected from the group of targets identified in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises 20 or more targets selected from the group of targets identified in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises 25 or more targets selected from the group of targets identified in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises 30 or more targets selected from the group of targets identified in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises 35 or more targets selected from the group of targets identified in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some instances, the plurality of targets comprises 40 or more targets selected from the group of targets identified in Tables 2, 4, 11 and 55. In some instances, the target is selected from Table 2. In other instances, the target is selected from Table 4. In some embodiments, the target is selected from Table 11. In some embodiments, assaying the expression level comprises detecting and/or quantifying a nucleotide sequence of the plurality of targets. In some instances, the method may further comprise diagnosing a cancer in the subject. In some embodiments, the cancer is selected from the group consisting of a carcinoma, sarcoma, leukemia, lymphoma, myeloma, and a CNS tumor. In some embodiments, the cancer is selected from the group consisting of skin cancer, lung cancer, colon cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, liver cancer, thyroid cancer, ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer, kidney cancer, epithelial carcinoma, squamous carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, melanoma, papilloma, and adenomas. In some embodiments, the cancer is a prostate cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a pancreatic cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a bladder cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a thyroid cancer. In some embodiments, the cancer is a lung cancer. In some instances, characterizing the subject comprises determining whether the subject would respond to an anti-cancer therapy. Alternatively, characterizing the subject comprises identifying the subject as a non-responder to an anti-cancer therapy. Optionally, characterizing the subject comprises identifying the subject as a responder to an anti-cancer therapy.
Further disclosed herein is a method of analyzing a cancer in an individual in need thereof, comprising (a) obtaining an expression profile from a sample obtained from the individual, wherein the expression profile comprises one or more targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55; and (b) comparing the expression profile from the sample to an expression profile of a control or standard. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 5 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, wherein the plurality of targets comprises at least 10 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 15 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 20 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the cancer is selected from the group consisting of a carcinoma, sarcoma, leukemia, lymphoma, myeloma, and a CNS tumor. In some embodiments, the cancer is selected from the group consisting of skin cancer, lung cancer, colon cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, liver cancer, thyroid cancer, ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer, kidney cancer, epithelial carcinoma, squamous carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, melanoma, papilloma, and adenomas. In some embodiments, the method further comprises a software module executed by a computer-processing device to compare the expression profiles. In some embodiments, the method further comprises providing diagnostic or prognostic information to the individual about the cardiovascular disorder based on the comparison. In some embodiments, the method further comprises diagnosing the individual with a cancer if the expression profile of the sample (a) deviates from the control or standard from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals, or (b) matches the control or standard from an individual or population of individuals who have or have had the cancer. In some embodiments, the method further comprises predicting the susceptibility of the individual for developing a cancer based on (a) the deviation of the expression profile of the sample from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals, or (b) the similarity of the expression profiles of the sample and a control or standard derived from an individual or population of individuals who have or have had the cancer. In some embodiments, the method further comprises prescribing a treatment regimen based on (a) the deviation of the expression profile of the sample from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals, or (b) the similarity of the expression profiles of the sample and a control or standard derived from an individual or population of individuals who have or have had the cancer. In some embodiments, the method further comprises altering a treatment regimen prescribed or administered to the individual based on (a) the deviation of the expression profile of the sample from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals, or (b) the similarity of the expression profiles of the sample and a control or standard derived from an individual or population of individuals who have or have had the cancer. In some embodiments, the method further comprises predicting the individual's response to a treatment regimen based on (a) the deviation of the expression profile of the sample from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals, or (b) the similarity of the expression profiles of the sample and a control or standard derived from an individual or population of individuals who have or have had the cancer. In some embodiments, the deviation is the expression level of one or more targets from the sample is greater than the expression level of one or more targets from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals. In some embodiments, the deviation is the expression level of one or more targets from the sample is at least about 30% greater than the expression level of one or more targets from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals. In some embodiments, the deviation is the expression level of one or more targets from the sample is less than the expression level of one or more targets from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals. In some embodiments, the deviation is the expression level of one or more targets from the sample is at least about 30% less than the expression level of one or more targets from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals. In some embodiments, the method further comprises using a machine to isolate the target or the probe from the sample. In some embodiments, the method further comprises contacting the sample with a label that specifically binds to the target, the probe, or a combination thereof. In some embodiments, the method further comprises contacting the sample with a label that specifically binds to a target selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55 or a combination thereof. In some instances, the target is selected from Table 2. In other instances, the target is selected from Table 4. In some embodiments, the target is selected from Table 11. In some embodiments, the method further comprises amplifying the target, the probe, or any combination thereof. In some embodiments, the method further comprises sequencing the target, the probe, or any combination thereof. In some embodiments, the method further comprises converting the expression levels of the target sequences into a likelihood score that indicates the probability that a biological sample is from a patient who will exhibit no evidence of disease, who will exhibit systemic cancer, or who will exhibit biochemical recurrence. In some embodiments, the target sequences are differentially expressed the cancer. In some embodiments, the differential expression is dependent on aggressiveness. In some embodiments, the expression profile is determined by a method selected from the group consisting of RT-PCR, Northern blotting, ligase chain reaction, array hybridization, and a combination thereof.
Also disclosed herein is a method of diagnosing cancer in an individual in need thereof, comprising (a) obtaining an expression profile from a sample obtained from the individual, wherein the expression profile comprises one or more targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55; (b) comparing the expression profile from the sample to an expression profile of a control or standard; and (c) diagnosing a cancer in the individual if the expression profile of the sample (i) deviates from the control or standard from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals, or (ii) matches the control or standard from an individual or population of individuals who have or have had the cancer. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 5 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, wherein the plurality of targets comprises at least 10 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 15 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 20 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the cancer is selected from the group consisting of a carcinoma, sarcoma, leukemia, lymphoma, myeloma, and a CNS tumor. In some embodiments, the cancer is selected from the group consisting of skin cancer, lung cancer, colon cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, liver cancer, thyroid cancer, ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer, kidney cancer, epithelial carcinoma, squamous carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, melanoma, papilloma, and adenomas. In some embodiments, the method further comprises a software module executed by a computer-processing device to compare the expression profiles. In some embodiments, the deviation is the expression level of one or more targets from the sample is at least about 30% greater than the expression level of one or more targets from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals. In some embodiments, the deviation is the expression level of one or more targets from the sample is less than the expression level of one or more targets from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals. In some embodiments, the deviation is the expression level of one or more targets from the sample is at least about 30% less than the expression level of one or more targets from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals. In some embodiments, the method further comprises using a machine to isolate the target or the probe from the sample. In some embodiments, the method further comprises contacting the sample with a label that specifically binds to the target, the probe, or a combination thereof. In some embodiments, the method further comprises contacting the sample with a label that specifically binds to a target selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55, or a combination thereof. In some embodiments, the method further comprises amplifying the target, the probe, or any combination thereof. In some embodiments, the method further comprises sequencing the target, the probe, or any combination thereof. In some embodiments, the method further comprises converting the expression levels of the target sequences into a likelihood score that indicates the probability that a biological sample is from a patient who will exhibit no evidence of disease, who will exhibit systemic cancer, or who will exhibit biochemical recurrence. In some embodiments, the target sequences are differentially expressed the cancer. In some embodiments, the differential expression is dependent on aggressiveness. In some embodiments, the expression profile is determined by a method selected from the group consisting of RT-PCR, Northern blotting, ligase chain reaction, array hybridization, and a combination thereof.
In some embodiments is a method of predicting whether an individual is susceptible to developing a cancer, comprising (a) obtaining an expression profile from a sample obtained from the individual, wherein the expression profile comprises one or more targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55; (b) comparing the expression profile from the sample to an expression profile of a control or standard; and (c) predicting the susceptibility of the individual for developing a cancer based on (i) the deviation of the expression profile of the sample from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals, or (ii) the similarity of the expression profiles of the sample and a control or standard derived from an individual or population of individuals who have or have had the cancer. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 5 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, wherein the plurality of targets comprises at least 10 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 15 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 20 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some instances, the target is selected from Table 2. In other instances, the target is selected from Table 4. In some embodiments, the target is selected from Table 11. In some embodiments, the cancer is selected from the group consisting of a carcinoma, sarcoma, leukemia, lymphoma, myeloma, and a CNS tumor. In some embodiments, the cancer is selected from the group consisting of skin cancer, lung cancer, colon cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, liver cancer, thyroid cancer, ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer, kidney cancer, epithelial carcinoma, squamous carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, melanoma, papilloma, and adenomas. In some embodiments, the method further comprises a software module executed by a computer-processing device to compare the expression profiles. In some embodiments, the deviation is the expression level of one or more targets from the sample is at least about 30% greater than the expression level of one or more targets from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals. In some embodiments, the deviation is the expression level of one or more targets from the sample is less than the expression level of one or more targets from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals. In some embodiments, the deviation is the expression level of one or more targets from the sample is at least about 30% less than the expression level of one or more targets from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals. In some embodiments, the method further comprises using a machine to isolate the target or the probe from the sample. In some embodiments, the method further comprises contacting the sample with a label that specifically binds to the target, the probe, or a combination thereof. In some embodiments, the method further comprises contacting the sample with a label that specifically binds to a target selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55, or a combination thereof. In some embodiments, the method further comprises amplifying the target, the probe, or any combination thereof. In some embodiments, the method further comprises sequencing the target, the probe, or any combination thereof. In some embodiments, the method further comprises converting the expression levels of the target sequences into a likelihood score that indicates the probability that a biological sample is from a patient who will exhibit no evidence of disease, who will exhibit systemic cancer, or who will exhibit biochemical recurrence. In some embodiments, the target sequences are differentially expressed the cancer. In some embodiments, the differential expression is dependent on aggressiveness. In some embodiments, the expression profile is determined by a method selected from the group consisting of RT-PCR, Northern blotting, ligase chain reaction, array hybridization, and a combination thereof.
In some embodiments is a method of predicting an individual's response to a treatment regimen for a cancer, comprising: (a) obtaining an expression profile from a sample obtained from the individual, wherein the expression profile comprises one or more targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55; (b) comparing the expression profile from the sample to an expression profile of a control or standard; and (c) predicting the individual's response to a treatment regimen based on (i) the deviation of the expression profile of the sample from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals, or (ii) the similarity of the expression profiles of the sample and a control or standard derived from an individual or population of individuals who have or have had the cancer. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 5 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, wherein the plurality of targets comprises at least 10 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 15 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 20 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some instances, the target is selected from Table 2. In other instances, the target is selected from Table 4. In some embodiments, the target is selected from Table 11. In some embodiments, the cancer is selected from the group consisting of a carcinoma, sarcoma, leukemia, lymphoma, myeloma, and a CNS tumor. In some embodiments, the cancer is selected from the group consisting of skin cancer, lung cancer, colon cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, liver cancer, thyroid cancer, ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer, kidney cancer, epithelial carcinoma, squamous carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, melanoma, papilloma, and adenomas. In some embodiments, the method further comprises a software module executed by a computer-processing device to compare the expression profiles. In some embodiments, the deviation is the expression level of one or more targets from the sample is at least about 30% greater than the expression level of one or more targets from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals. In some embodiments, the deviation is the expression level of one or more targets from the sample is less than the expression level of one or more targets from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals. In some embodiments, the deviation is the expression level of one or more targets from the sample is at least about 30% less than the expression level of one or more targets from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals. In some embodiments, the method further comprises using a machine to isolate the target or the probe from the sample. In some embodiments, the method further comprises contacting the sample with a label that specifically binds to the target, the probe, or a combination thereof. In some embodiments, the method further comprises contacting the sample with a label that specifically binds to a target selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55, or a combination thereof. In some embodiments, the method further comprises amplifying the target, the probe, or any combination thereof. In some embodiments, the method further comprises sequencing the target, the probe, or any combination thereof. In some embodiments, the method further comprises converting the expression levels of the target sequences into a likelihood score that indicates the probability that a biological sample is from a patient who will exhibit no evidence of disease, who will exhibit systemic cancer, or who will exhibit biochemical recurrence. In some embodiments, the target sequences are differentially expressed the cancer. In some embodiments, the differential expression is dependent on aggressiveness. In some embodiments, the expression profile is determined by a method selected from the group consisting of RT-PCR, Northern blotting, ligase chain reaction, array hybridization, and a combination thereof.
A method of prescribing a treatment regimen for a cancer to an individual in need thereof, comprising (a) obtaining an expression profile from a sample obtained from the individual, wherein the expression profile comprises one or more targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55; (b) comparing the expression profile from the sample to an expression profile of a control or standard; and (c) prescribing a treatment regimen based on (i) the deviation of the expression profile of the sample from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals, or (ii) the similarity of the expression profiles of the sample and a control or standard derived from an individual or population of individuals who have or have had the cancer. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 5 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 10 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 15 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 20 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some instances, the target is selected from Table 2. In other instances, the target is selected from Table 4. In some embodiments, the target is selected from Table 11. In some embodiments, the cancer is selected from the group consisting of a carcinoma, sarcoma, leukemia, lymphoma, myeloma, and a CNS tumor. In some embodiments, the cancer is selected from the group consisting of skin cancer, lung cancer, colon cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, liver cancer, thyroid cancer, ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer, kidney cancer, epithelial carcinoma, squamous carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, melanoma, papilloma, and adenomas. In some embodiments, the method further comprises a software module executed by a computer-processing device to compare the expression profiles. In some embodiments, the deviation is the expression level of one or more targets from the sample is at least about 30% greater than the expression level of one or more targets from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals. In some embodiments, the deviation is the expression level of one or more targets from the sample is less than the expression level of one or more targets from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals. In some embodiments, the deviation is the expression level of one or more targets from the sample is at least about 30% less than the expression level of one or more targets from a control or standard derived from a healthy individual or population of healthy individuals. In some embodiments, the method further comprises using a machine to isolate the target or the probe from the sample. In some embodiments, the method further comprises contacting the sample with a label that specifically binds to the target, the probe, or a combination thereof. In some embodiments, the method further comprises contacting the sample with a label that specifically binds to a target selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55, or a combination thereof. In some embodiments, the method further comprises amplifying the target, the probe, or any combination thereof. In some embodiments, the method further comprises sequencing the target, the probe, or any combination thereof. In some embodiments, the method further comprises converting the expression levels of the target sequences into a likelihood score that indicates the probability that a biological sample is from a patient who will exhibit no evidence of disease, who will exhibit systemic cancer, or who will exhibit biochemical recurrence. In some embodiments, the target sequences are differentially expressed the cancer. In some embodiments, the differential expression is dependent on aggressiveness. In some embodiments, the expression profile is determined by a method selected from the group consisting of RT-PCR, Northern blotting, ligase chain reaction, array hybridization, and a combination thereof.
Further disclosed herein is a kit for analyzing a cancer, comprising (a) a probe set comprising a plurality of target sequences, wherein the plurality of target sequences comprises at least one target sequence listed in Table 11; and (b) a computer model or algorithm for analyzing an expression level and/or expression profile of the target sequences in a sample. In some embodiments, the kit further comprises a computer model or algorithm for correlating the expression level or expression profile with disease state or outcome. In some embodiments, the kit further comprises a computer model or algorithm for designating a treatment modality for the individual. In some embodiments, the kit further comprises a computer model or algorithm for normalizing expression level or expression profile of the target sequences. In some embodiments, the kit further comprises a computer model or algorithm comprising a robust multichip average (RMA), probe logarithmic intensity error estimation (PLIER), non-linear fit (NLFIT) quantile-based, nonlinear normalization, or a combination thereof. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 10 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 15 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 20 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some instances, the target is selected from Table 2. In other instances, the target is selected from Table 4. In some embodiments, the target is selected from Table 11. In some embodiments, the cancer is selected from the group consisting of a carcinoma, sarcoma, leukemia, lymphoma, myeloma, and a CNS tumor. In some embodiments, the cancer is selected from the group consisting of skin cancer, lung cancer, colon cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, liver cancer, thyroid cancer, ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer, kidney cancer, epithelial carcinoma, squamous carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, melanoma, papilloma, and adenomas.
Further disclosed herein is a system for analyzing a cancer, comprising (a) a probe set comprising a plurality of target sequences, wherein (i) the plurality of target sequences hybridizes to one or more targets selected from Tables 2 or 4; or (ii) the plurality of target sequences comprises one or more target sequences selected from Table 11; and (b) a computer model or algorithm for analyzing an expression level and/or expression profile of the target hybridized to the probe in a sample from a subject suffering from a cancer. In some embodiments, the system further comprises electronic memory for capturing and storing an expression profile. In some embodiments, the system further comprises a computer-processing device, optionally connected to a computer network. In some embodiments, the system further comprises a software module executed by the computer-processing device to analyze an expression profile. In some embodiments, the system further comprises a software module executed by the computer-processing device to compare the expression profile to a standard or control. In some embodiments, the system further comprises a software module executed by the computer-processing device to determine the expression level of the target. In some embodiments, the system further comprises a machine to isolate the target or the probe from the sample. In some embodiments, the system further comprises a machine to sequence the target or the probe. In some embodiments, the system further comprises a machine to amplify the target or the probe. In some embodiments, the system further comprises a label that specifically binds to the target, the probe, or a combination thereof. In some embodiments, the system further comprises a software module executed by the computer-processing device to transmit an analysis of the expression profile to the individual or a medical professional treating the individual. In some embodiments, the system further comprises a software module executed by the computer-processing device to transmit a diagnosis or prognosis to the individual or a medical professional treating the individual. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 5 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 10 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 15 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some embodiments, the plurality of targets comprises at least 20 targets selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. In some instances, the target is selected from Table 2. In other instances, the target is selected from Table 4. In some embodiments, the target is selected from Table 11. In some embodiments, the cancer is selected from the group consisting of a carcinoma, sarcoma, leukemia, lymphoma, myeloma, and a CNS tumor. In some embodiments, the cancer is selected from the group consisting of skin cancer, lung cancer, colon cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, liver cancer, thyroid cancer, ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer, kidney cancer, epithelial carcinoma, squamous carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, melanoma, papilloma, and adenomas.
Study Design
This study used a previously described case-control study for biomarker discovery and a case-cohort for independent validation. A STROBE flow diagram providing an overview of the case-control study is available in (
The discovery study was a nested case-control described in detail in Nakagawa et al 2008. Archived formalin-fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) blocks of tumors were selected from 621 patients that had undergone a radical prostatectomy (RP) at the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Centre between the years 1987-2001 providing a median of 18.16 years of follow-up. The patients were randomly split into a training and test sets; the training set was used for biomarker discovery and classifier development and the testing set was used to measure performance and with model selection.
Patients were retrospectively classified into one of three outcomes: NED: No evidence of disease for those patients with no biochemical or other clinical signs of disease progression (at least 10 years follow-up); PSA: prostate-specific antigen biochemical recurrence for those patients with two successive increases in PSA measurements above an established cut-point of >0.2 ng/(with the subsequent measure 0.05 ng/mL above the first measurement) within 5 years of RP and no detectable metases up to 10 years after RP; METS: for those patients experience BCR within 5 years of RP and that developed metastases (confirmed by bone or CT scan) within 5 years of BCR. Patient selection for nested case-control design is outlined in Nakagawa.
On average, METS patients were diagnosed within 3.22 years following BCR and 5.79 years following RP, implying that this METS group experienced rapid onset of metastatic disease. Some PSA patients do experience metastatic disease (n=18, or 9.9% of all PSA patients in the discovery study), however, these patients have the event 10 years beyond RP and thus are outside the MET definition. Due to the condition that both PSA and MET groups had to experience BCR event within 5 years of RP, there is no statistically significant difference for the time to BCR between PSA (median: 1.70 years [IQR:0.65-3.44]) and MET (median: 2.26 years [IQR:0.78-3.94]) groups. Patients in this study did not receive a consistent treatment regimen, and may be highly treated with adjuvant interventions compared to other cohorts. Where possible we account for adjuvant interventions in analysis to mitigate its impact as a confounding factor (See Statistical Analysis).
We conducted a study that investigated the differences between NED, PSA and METS outcome groups and found there to be no statistically significant differences between the NED and PSA groups, with the largest difference in genomic and clinicopathologic variables to be found when comparing METS against NED or PSA groups. We have evidence to believe that NED and PSA groups may represent a less aggressive type of prostate cancer, and that these patients will likely not experience metastatic progression in their life-time, conversely METS patients represent rapid disease onset and more aggressive prostate cancer. To maximize discovery of biomarkers that identified oncogenic drivers of aggressive disease, we combined the NED and PSA groups into a unified Non-METS group to compare against the METS.
The discovery study included 621 patients who underwent RP at the Mayo Clinic between 1987-2001. Patients who received neo-adjuvant interventions were excluded. After chip quality control (www.affymetrix.com), 545 unique patients (209 with mets after RP and 336 with BCR only or NED) were available for the biomarker discovery study (median follow-up, 18.2 years). The study patients were further subdivided by random draw into training (n=359) and testing (n=186) subsets, balancing for the distribution of clinicopathologic variables (Table 1) as previously described.
The initial Clinical characteristics of these samples related to biochemical recurrence (BCR), METS (or clinical recurrence (CR)), prostate cancer specific mortality (PCSM) and overall survival are shown in
Subjects for independent validation were identified from a population of 1,010 men prospectively enrolled in the Mayo Clinic tumor registry who underwent RP for prostatic adenocarcinoma from 2000-2006 and were at high risk for disease recurrence. High-risk for recurrence was defined by pre-operative PSA >20 ng/mL, or pathological Gleason score≥8, or seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) or GPSM (Gleason, PSA, seminal vesicle and margin status) score≥10. Data was collected using a case-cohort design over the follow-up period (median, 8.06 years), 71 patients developed metastatic disease (mets) as evidenced by positive bone and/or CT scans. Data was collected using a case-cohort design, which involved selection of all 73 cases combined with a random sample of 202 patients (˜20%) from the entire cohort. After exclusion for tissue unavailability and samples that failed microarray quality control, the independent validation cohort consisted of 219 (69 cases) unique patients.
RNA Extraction and Microarray Hybridization
Following pathological review of FFPE primary prostatic adenocarcinoma specimens from patients in the discovery and validation cohorts, tumor was macrodissected from surrounding stroma from 3-4 10 μm tissue sections. Total RNA was extracted, amplified using the Ovation FFPE kit (NuGEN, San Carlos, Calif.), and hybridized to Human Exon 1.0 ST GeneChips (Affymetrix, Santa Clara, Calif.) that profiles coding and non-coding regions of the transcriptome using approximately 1.4 million probe selection regions, hereinafter referred to as features.
For the discovery study, total RNA was prepared as described herein. For the independent validation study, total RNA was extracted and purified using a modified protocol for the commercially available RNeasy FFPE nucleic acid extraction kit (Qiagen Inc., Valencia, Calif.). RNA concentrations were determined using a Nanodrop ND-1000 spectrophotometer (Nanodrop Technologies, Rockland, Del.). Purified total RNA was subjected to whole-transcriptome amplification using the WT-Ovation FFPE system according to the manufacturer's recommendation with minor modifications (NuGen, San Carlos, Calif.). For the discovery study the WT-Ovation FFPE V2 kit was used together with the Exon Module while for the validation only the Ovation® FFPE WTA System was used. Amplified products were fragmented and labeled using the Encore™ Biotin Module (NuGen, San Carlos, Calif.) and hybridized to Affymetrix Human Exon (HuEx) 1.0 ST GeneChips following manufacturer's recommendations (Affymetrix, Santa Clara, Calif.). Only 604 out of a total 621 patients had specimens available for hybridization.
Microarray Processing
Microarray Quality Control
The Affymetrix Power Tools packages provide an index characterizing the quality of each chip, independently, named “pos_vs_neg_AUC”. This index compares signal values for positive and negative control probesets defined by the manufacturer. Values for the AUC are in [0, 1], arrays that fall under 0.6 were removed from analysis.
Only 545 unique samples, out of the total 604 with available specimens (inter- and intra-batch duplicates were run), were of sufficient quality for further analysis; 359 and 187 samples were available from the training and testing sets respectively. We re-evaluated the variable balance between the training and testing sets and found there to be no statistically significant difference for any of the variables.
Microarray Normalization, Probeset Filtering, and Batch Effect Correction
Probeset summarization and normalization was performed by fRMA, which is available through Bioconductor. The fRMA algorithm relates to RMA with the exception that it specifically attempts to consider batch effect during probeset summarization and is capable of storing the model parameters in so called ‘frozen vectors’. We generated a custom set of frozen vectors by randomly selecting 15 arrays from each of the 19 batches in the discovery study. The frozen vectors can be applied to novel data without having to renormalize the entire dataset. We furthermore filtered out unreliable PSRs by removing cross-hybridizing probes as well as high PSRs variability of expression values in a prostate cancer cell line and those with fewer than 4 probes. Following fRMA and filtration the data was decomposed into its principal components and an analysis of variance model was used to determine the extent to which a batch effect remains present in the first 10 principal components. We chose to remove the first two principal components, as they were highly correlated with the batch processing date.
Non-Coding RNA Analysis
Sequence information from each probe in a PSR can be aligned and annotated against the human reference genome by xmapcore (Yates, et al., X:Map: Annotation and visualization of genome structure for Affymetrix exon array analysis, Nucleic Acids Res. (2008), Epub.) Using annotation data from the human genome version hg19/GRCh37 (Ensembl annotation release 62), we categorize the PSRs into coding, non-coding (UTR) and non-coding (intronic) as defined by xmapcore.
The PSRs that cannot be categorized in the groups above are further categorized as follows:
Non-coding (Non-unique): one or more probes don't align perfectly to the genome, or one or more probes align perfectly to multiple regions of the genome.
Non-coding (ncTranscript): PSR correspond to the exon of a non-coding transcript.
Non-coding (CDS_Antisense): PSR corresponds to a segment in the opposite strand of the coding sequence of a protein-coding transcript.
Non-coding (UTR_Antisense): PSR corresponds to a segment in the opposite strand of the UTR sequence (5′ or 3′) of a transcript.
Non-coding (Intronic_Antisense): PSR correspond to a segment in the opposite strand of the intronic sequence of a protein-coding transcript.
Non-coding (ncTranscript_Antisense): PSR correspond to the exon of a non-coding transcript in the opposite strand.
Non-coding (Intergenic): if the probes were not categorized under any of the groups above and it is annotated as ‘intergenic’ by xmapcore.
We additionally used xmapcore to annotate the gene symbol, gene synonym, Ensembl gene ID and biological description for any PSRs that overlapped with a transcript when necessary; this excludes alignments to non-coding (non-unique) and non-coding (intergenic) sequences.
Overview of the entire microarray analysis pipeline is provided in
Feature Selection
The remaining features following the analysis in Example 1 were subjected to filtration by a t-test between the METS and non-METS samples in the training set (n=359). Using a p-value cut-off of 0.01, 18,902 features remain in analysis for further selection. Feature selection was performed by regularized logistic regression using the elastic-net penalty through the glmnet v1.7 package available in R with an alpha-value of 0.5 with three-fold cross validation. The regularized regression, with cross validation, was bootstrapped over 1000 times using all training data (n=359); with each iteration of bootstrapping we tabulated features that had a non-zero co-efficient. Features that were selected in at least 25% of the total runs were used for model building.
Non-Coding RNA Analysis
We annotated the 43-biomarker set with labels described in Example 1 to identify the extent of non-coding features. We show the various labels within the 43-biomarker set in
The set of probe sets reported here is rich in novel information for prostate cancer prognosis, as most of the probe sets fall in non-coding regions suggesting that non-coding RNAs may constitute a set of highly informative markers for prostate cancer.
To further ensure robustness of the features in the signature, we applied a final filtration method that would establish the minimal number of features required to minimize the mean squared error (MSE) of the model. To do this we used the rfcv function from the randomForest package, using 10-fold cross validation and a step value of 0.9. This method will order the features in accordance to their variable importance and iteratively remove 10% of lowest ranking features and measure the MSE at each step. We selected the number of features that were at the knee of the curve, shown in
Classifier Development
We developed three classifiers using the aforementioned 22 features, clinicopathologic variables, and a combination of both. We referred to the classifiers as the genomic classifier (GC), clinical classifier (CC) and integrated genomic clinical classifier (GCC); they are described in detail below. The primary endpoint for classifier development was the METS event. Although it is typical to report probabilities of progression at 2, 5, 7 or 10 years after METS, the design of the discovery study prevents us from reporting probabilities that are meaningful outside of study. For this reason, the scores for all of the aforementioned models prognosticate whether a given individual will experience metastatic disease progression, as this endpoint is not subject to modeling disease prevalence or time to an event but rather the presence or absence of features that indicate disease aggression.
Genomic Classifier (GC)
A total of 22 features were used for model building. As a further method of standardization, the expression values for the 22 features were percentile ranked for each patient. We used a random forest from the randomForest package available in R for model building and used the tune function, from the e1071 package, to identify the optimal model parameters; the optimal parameters were established to be: nodesize=80, ntree=700, mtry=15. The tuning parameters were selected to optimize classification accuracy in the training set. The model built from the training data is frozen and stored for future application to novel data. The model for classification built from the 22-biomarker feature set is henceforth referred to as the genomic classifier (GC) when applied to novel data. Notable, the final feature set (Table 4) is such that most of the 22 features in GC were ncRNA and only three were from protein-encoding mRNA (Table 4).
The GC outputs a score between [0,1], where 1 indicates higher metastatic potential. The score is derived as an output of the random forest, and rather than representing a probability it represents the total percentage of the trees in the forest that classified a new case as METS. Alternatively, it may also be said that each decision tree within the random forest decides whether the expression levels of the 22 features in a given tumor sample is more representative of MET disease or not. We used a 0.5 cutoff to classify patients as having METS or not because it is objective and used the simple Majority rule logic.
Clinical Classifier (CC)
A clinical classifier (CC) for predicting the METS end point was developed using the following clinicopathologic variables: Lymph node invasion status (LNI); Surgical Margin Status (SMS); Seminal Vesicle Invasion (SVI); Extra Capsular Extension (ECE); Pathological Gleason Score; and the pre-operative PSA. The first four clinical variables (LNI, SMS, SVI and ECE) are used as binary variables, indicating present or not; the pre-operative PSA values are taken to log 10. The clinical variables were assembled in a logistic regression and the trained model was used to predict METS in the testing set and validation study. CC produces a probability between 0 and 1, where 0 indicates low metastatic potential and 1 indicates a high metastatic potential.
The motivation for developing the CC was to compare the GC and GCC (described below) against a prognostic model that was developed for a similar endpoint. As the majority of post-operative nomograms prognosticate BCR in an “all-comers” population, we felt it was necessary to compare GC and GCC against a nomogram based on a high-risk population with the METS endpoint. The CC served as an intermediate benchmark between the GC and GCC and made it possible to quantify the difference additional genomic information provided in risk prediction.
Genomic Clinical Classifier (GCC)
The GC scores were assembled along with clinicopathologic variables used for CC using a logistic linear regression model fitted to the training data. The combined GC and CC model is referred to as Genomic Clinical Classifier (GCC).
Comparison to Nakagawa 17-Gene Signature
This discovery cohort was previously profiled using the Illumina DASL expression microarray (Cancer Panel v1) containing 502 oncogenes, tumor suppressors genes and genes in their associate pathways. Nakagawa (2008) describes the development of a 17 gene signature to predict METS (referred to as systemic progression in that text). We translated the 17 gene signature from the DASL platform to the HuEx platform and re-modeled those genes in the training set using logistic regression. We compare the performance of the 17-gene signature against GC, CC and GCC.
We found that in both training and testing, GC, CC and GCC outperformed the 17-gene signature (and also the GPSM nomogram); the AUC results are summarized in Table 5.
Statistical Analysis
The CC, GC and GCC prediction models were evaluated in the independent validation cohort and compared to the GPSM scores for predicting the primary endpoint of mets. Researchers at GenomeDx were blinded to the outcomes and the initial analysis was conducted by Mayo Clinic statisticians (RC and EJB). C discrimination index (c-index), an extension of the area under the ROC curve for the case of censored survival data was used to initially compare the performance of each model to predict mets. The 95% confidence intervals for the c-index were approximated through bootstrapping.
Following de-blinding, several additional analyses were performed. Calibration plots, survival ROC, and decision curves were used to assess overall discrimination. Decision curve analysis was used to compare the net benefit (e.g., the gain in sensitivity weighted by a loss in specificity) over a range of ‘decision-to-treat’ threshold probabilities using the clinical-only vs. genomic models. Survival ROC and decision curves were evaluated for prediction of mets within 5 years after RP. Graphical diagnostic, ROC-based, and Censored data methods were used to determine a tentative cut-off for GC on the discovery set.
Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to test for associations between models and the mets endpoint. Proportional hazards assumptions of the Cox model were confirmed by evaluating the scaled Schoenfeld residuals. Due to the case-cohort design of the validation study, survival analysis utilized the Lin-Ying method, weighting the controls to reflect mets incidence in the cohort at large. Cumulative incidence curves were constructed using competing risks analysis to accommodate censoring due to death, and other events, which bias Kaplan-Meier estimates of incidence. CC, GC and GCC models were subdivided into tertiles as an objective demarcation of low, intermediate and high risk groups. The GPSM score risk groups were defined previously.
Analyses were performed using R v 2.14.1 (www.R-project.org). All tests were two-sided and a Type I error probability of 5%. The study was approved by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board.
Biomarker Evaluation
Independent Validation of Prognostic Classifiers
In a blinded-independent validation study, 5-year survival ROC curves for metastasis-free end point showed a c-index of 0.70 and 0.59 for CC and GPSM, respectively (
Moreover, discrimination box-plots and calibration curves show the improved performance for classifiers that used the genomic variables over clinicopathologic models (CC and GPSM) (
A decision curve comparing the models is shown in
Cumulative incidence plots compared the incidence of mets events in the risk groups for each model (
Difference in cumulative incidence between tertiles was highly significant for GCC (p<0.001), with the 1st tertile group having an incidence of <1% at 5-years post RP and only three cases of mets (which all occurred >5 years post RP). The 2nd tertile had 5-year post RP cumulative incidence of 5% (less than the 7.5% rate in the full cohort) and the 3rd tertile GCC group had 44 mets events, with 5-year incidence of ˜15%. In addition, the majority of patients in the 3rd GCC tertile experienced mets within 3 years of RP. The cumulative incidence differences between tertiles were also significant for both GC and CC models (
Table 6 shows the comparison of GPSM and GC categorization of subjects to risk groups. The study consists of mainly high-risk patients; as such there are no GPSM low risk patients. Here we show that GC can adequately identify those patients that are truly high-risk from those that are not, we confirm this using a McNemar's test. Considering this is a high-risk cohort of adverse pathology, most patients were GPSM high-risk (n=196) with a smaller number of GPSM intermediate-risk (n=23). GPSM and GC gave consistent results in 88 (40%) of subjects, but GC reclassified 124 out of 196 (63%) GPSM high-risk (GPSM>10) patients into lower risk groups. With additional genomic information, the GC systematically downgraded GPSM high-risk subjects to lower risk categories (p<0.0001 McNemar's test). Given, the low cumulative incidences of metastatic disease (
Univariable analysis is detailed in Table 7 and shows that in this high-risk cohort, the majority of the clinicopathologic variables, with the exception of margin status and pre-operative PSA, were significant prognostic factors. GC has a high precision in estimating increasing risk of 56% of developing mets for every 0.1 unit increment in GC score (HR=1.56, CI: 1.35-1.80, p<0.001). However, with multivariable Cox regression modeling of the individual clinical and genomic components of the GCC model, while GC remained a significant variable with an HR of 1.48 (CI: 1.27-1.73, p<0.001) for every 0.1 unit increment in GC score, no clinical variables remained significant for predicting mets (Tables 8-9). In Table 8, GC is adjusted for clinicopathologic components of GCC (seminal vesicle invasion, pathological Gleason sum, pre-operative PSA, extra-capsular extension, lymph node involvement and positive margin as well as administration of adjuvant hormones. The Lin-Ying method was used to account for the case-cohort design when determining the hazard ratios. The GC hazard ratio is for a 0.1 unit change in the GC risk score.
GC was also adjusted for CC and GPSM in separate multivariable regression analyses and yet remained the only significant risk factor (Table 10).
This study describes the development and independent validation of a novel prognostic biomarker signature, a genomic classifier (GC) identified by analyzing 764 high-risk radical prostatectomy patients (545 in discovery set and 219 in an independent validation set) with long-term follow-up. The GC was designed to predict rapid metastatic disease progression, an endpoint based on radiographic imaging that is clinically much more relevant for aggressive prostate cancer than most previous biomarker reports using the BCR endpoint. All tumor specimens were profiled using high-density microarray analysis of RNA from archived patient FFPE specimens. The transcriptome-wide approach allowed interrogation of a much richer genomic dataset, including many thousands of ncRNAs, compared to previous efforts which were primarily protein-coding ‘gene-centric’. The GC model was validated in an independent blinded study of a contemporary cohort (2000-2006) of prostatectomy patients with adverse pathology, reflecting the population where clinical variables and nomogram models fail to decipher the small percentage of men who will develop lethal prostate cancer.
In the high-risk validation cohort of 1,010 men treated at the Mayo Clinic, only 7.5% developed metastatic disease. Even after accounting for use of adjuvant therapy, risk stratification based on pathology alone failed to accurately predict metastatic disease and supporting the notion that even high risk prostate cancer is a molecularly heterogeneous disease. The improved calibration of genomic models over clinical-only models may be due to incorporation of true molecular drivers of aggressive disease in the GC models, so that even in a clinicopathologic homogeneous ‘high-risk’ patient population, GC can better segregate ‘true high-risk’ patients from the majority who will not progress. Decision curve analysis also showed that the prognostic classifiers using genomic information had a broader range of clinical benefit, based on “decision-to-treat” thresholds, compared to clinical-only models. Again, the limited range of benefit shown by the CC and GPSM models may be a further reflection of their limited discriminative ability in high risk men. Lastly, even after adjusting for adjuvant therapy multivariable analysis showed GC remained the only significant predictor, suggesting that the genomic signature captures most of the prognostic information as it relates to metastatic disease development in the high-risk cohort.
To our knowledge, this is the first study to extensively validate a biomarker signature based primarily on ncRNA. This may be an important reason why the GC model (only 3 features selected from protein-encoding mRNA; see Table 4) showed significantly improved performance over previous gene-based models. Supporting this notion, we recently reported our reanalysis of the MSKCC Prostate Oncogenome Project expression data and demonstrated that ncRNA expression was more prognostic than protein-coding genes and in multivariable analysis provided predictive information independent of the Kattan nomogram. The importance of ncRNA in aggressive prostate cancer is further highlighted by several recent studies that have demonstrated their involvement in tumor cell invasion and metastasis.
The vast majority of patients with aggressive disease have adverse pathology. However, the fact remains that most patients with adverse pathology will not die from prostate cancer. The question remains for most urologists and their patients, of when, and how, to intervene for patients with adverse pathology. Up to 20% of RP patients with adverse pathology in contemporary practice will inevitably require additional intervention with radiation, hormones or chemotherapy as durable cancer control will not be achieved using radical surgery alone. Three large, randomized clinical trials (SWOG 8794, EORTC 22911 and ARO 96-02) have shown improved biochemical recurrence-free and/or metastasis-free survival for men with adverse pathology when treated with immediate adjuvant radiation therapy versus initial observation. Initial reports from the RTOG 96-01 trial, which randomized early salvage radiation patients to anti-androgen therapy or observation, indicated that intensification with multimodal therapy post RP reduces the incidence of metastatic disease. Despite this evidence, urologists have not widely adopted adjuvant intervention after RP and favor instead treatment upon PSA relapse or biochemical recurrence (BCR).
This practice, however, may lead to under-treatment of some patients in the adjuvant setting, where radiation has a proven benefit and over-treatment of many patients in the salvage setting, since BCR is a poor surrogate for metastatic disease.
As management strategies evolve, a ‘reverse stage-shift’ has occurred in the last decade, whereby more low-risk patients opt for active surveillance and more high-risk patients undergo RP. As a result, urologists are seeing a higher proportion of patients with adverse pathology after RP. In a contemporary cohort of men with adverse pathology we show that adding genomic variables to established clinical risk factors significantly improves prediction models for metastatic disease. Furthermore, we found that most of the prognostic information for predicting metastatic disease is captured by the genomic variables, which are measured in the primary tumor. This data supports the notion that genomic alterations in lethal prostate cancer manifest early on, many years before metastatic disease can be radiographically imaged. Improved identification of patients most at risk for developing disease may better serve those most in need for adjuvant therapy. It is in these patients that we are further testing the performance of this classifier, its usefulness in guiding risk stratification and decision-making after RP in additional validation studies. More accurate prediction of lethal prostate cancer within this high risk population of surgical prostate cancer patients may lead ultimately to improved outcomes.
Gleason 7 Sub Cohort Analysis
Patients with pathological Gleason stage 7 represent a difficult to classify intermediate category in prostate-cancer clinical decision making. It has been suggested that patients with a primary Gleason 4 and secondary Gleason 3 (4+3) have a worse outcome than 3+4 patients. We demonstrated that GCC was better able to segregate Gleason 7 patients with improved outcome compared to the current 4+3 vs. 3+4 method. First, we compared the capacity of the CC (also referred to as the Clinical Model, or CM) and GCC to segregate Gleason 7 patients (
Application to Adjuvant Hormones Lymph Node Positive Patients
We assessed the capacity of GCC to segregate a set of Lymph Node positive (N+) patients uniformly treated with adjuvant hormone therapy. We compared its performance against CC and used both the mets and PCSM endpoint (
A subject arrives at a doctor's office and complains of symptoms including bone and joint pain, easy bruising, and fatigue. The doctor examines the subject and also notices that the subject's lymph nodes are also swollen. Bone marrow and blood samples are obtained from the subject. Microarray analysis of the samples obtained from the subject reveal aberrant expression of one or more transcripts selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55 and the subject is diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
A subject is diagnosed with breast cancer. A tissue sample is obtained from the subject. Nucleic acids are isolated from the tissue sample and a probe set comprising at least ten probes capable of detecting the expression of at least one non-coding RNA transcript and at least one protein-coding transcript. Analysis of the expression level of one or more transcripts selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55 reveals the subject has a tamoxifen-resistant breast cancer and gefitinib is recommended as an alternative therapy.
A subject is diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. A tissue sample is obtained from the subject. The tissue sample is assayed for the expression level of biomarkers comprising one or more transcripts selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55. Based on the expression level of the one or more transcripts selected from Tables 2, 4, 11 or 55, it is determined that the pancreatic cancer has a high risk of recurrence.
As described in Example 3, a final set of 22 markers was selected for building a random forest classifier. The high-density array used in this study permits measurement of the expression patterns of RNAs associated with multiple biological processes in prostate cancer progression. Also, this transcriptome-wide approach allowed interrogation of a much richer genomic dataset, including thousands of ncRNA. Furthermore, the genomic markers measure the biological potential of the tumor to metastasize. The biological processes represented in the 22 markers include cell cycle progression, cell adhesion, tumor cell motility, migration and immune system modulation Multidimensional scaling analysis depicts clustering of cases and controls based on the expression of these 22 markers (
The performance of the classifiers and the individual genes was subsequently assessed in both training and testing sets (
Clinical variables were calculated, categorized or transformed as follows. Pathological Gleason Score (GS, or pathGS) was dichotomized into groups with the threshold of ≥8; although convention is to segregate GS into three groups (<6, 7, ≥8) the relative lack of patients with GS≤6 prompted the dichotomization of GS. The pre-operative PSA (pPSA), measured immediately prior to RP, was loge-transformed. The following variables were binary: Extra-capsular Extension (ECE); Seminal Vesicle Invasion (SVI); Surgical Margins (SM+, or SMS) and Lymph Node Involvement (N+, or LNI). Hormone and radiation therapy were included as separate binary covariates if administered in an adjuvant (<90 days post RP) or salvage (following PSA rise) setting. Treatments administered subsequent to clinical metastasis were not included.
In the training set (see Example 1), ROC area-under the curve (AUC) values for GC, CC and GCC were 0.90, 0.76 and 0.91 respectively, outperforming all individual clinical variables: GSm N+, ECE, SVI, SM+, N+, pPSA and Tumor Volume (
A blinded study independently validated GC for prediction of clinical metastasis (metastasis) following radical prostatectomy. The results showed that the GC model had improved performance over any individual clinicopathologic variable or multivariable prediction model. In this independent validation set, the AUC of 5-year survival ROC curves demonstrated that GC had higher discriminatory ability than individual clinicopathologic variables (
In order to test for the effect size of individual variables as well as dependencies among these variables, we performed univariable and multivariable analyses using logistic regression on the testing set (Table 12). In univariable analysis, we found GC, CC, GCC, GS, SVI and ECE to be statistically significant predictors of cases (p<0.05). The odds ratio for GC was 1.42 for every 10% increase in GC score. When dichotomized into low and high GC risk groups, as described above, the odds ratio was 6.79 (95% CI: 3.46-13.29), more than twice the odds ratio of Gleason score (OR: 3.02 (95% CI: 1.61-5.68)) for predicting cases. In multivariable analysis, after adjustment for post RP treatment, GC remained the only significant prognostic variable (p<0.001) with an OR of 1.36 for every 10% increase in GC score. The independent significance of GC suggested that a more direct measure of tumor biology (e.g., 22-marker expression signature) added significant prognostic information for prediction of early metastasis after rising PSA, which was not captured by the clinical variables available from pathological analysis.
In univariable analysis (UVA) on the independent validation set, GC had the highest significant hazard ratio (HR) among classifiers (Table 7). In multivariable analysis (MVA) on the independent validation set, only GC retained a significant HR when adjusted for clinical variables and postoperative adjuvant therapy (Table 8; P<0.001). Gleason score was alternatively parameterized (e.g., 3+4, 4+3, 8, 9-10) but this did not change the significance of GC (Table 13). Three additional MVA models were performed to model GC with CC, GPSM and the Stephenson nomogram. Only the Stephenson nomogram retained a significant HR (p<0.04) with GC as the dominant variable in the model (Table 10, Table 14).
1 Hazard ratio reported for 10% increase of GC score.
2 Hazard ratio reported for 1.0 unit increments of log-transformed level.
1 Hazard ratio reported for 10% increase of GC score.
To investigate the magnitude of the hazards ratio for incremental increases in GC score we evaluated the effect size of each 10% increase in GC score for predicting clinical metastasis after adjusting for postoperative treatment (Table 15). We observed a general trend of increasing HR, and decreasing probability of metastasis-free survival with increasing deciles. However, this was not statistically significant because of the small number of patients, in the higher GC deciles. GC score deciles were then incrementally collapsed to create three GC risk groups (GC scores<0.4, 0.4-0.6, ≥0.6) and these showed significant differences in HR (and survival) in comparison to the reference group as well as to the prior level (Table 16).
The distribution of cases and controls in the testing set by both GC and Gleason score risk groups was illustrated in
The clinical significance of GC was further evidenced by the statistically significant differences of low and high-risk GC groups for the Prostate Cancer Specific Mortality Endpoint (PCSM) found within different Gleason Score Risk Groups (
Most men with lethal prostate cancer present initially with localized disease, and develop biochemical recurrence (BCR) following local treatment. Biomarkers potentially improve prediction of progression risk after radical prostatectomy (RP). We compared two validated post-RP classifiers: a genomic classifier (GC) and CAPRA-S(based on standard clinicopathologic parameters), to predict cancer-specific mortality (CSM) in a contemporary cohort of RP patients.
Materials and Methods
Patient Population
Subjects were identified from a population of 1,010 men prospectively enrolled in the Mayo Clinic tumor registry who underwent RP for prostatic adenocarcinoma from 2000-2006 (see Example 1). This population was clinically high-risk for metastasis, as defined by pre-operative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels>20 ng/mL, pathological Gleason score≥8, Seminal Vesicle Invasion (SVI), or GPSM (Gleason score; pre-operative PSA; SVI; surgical margin status, SMS) score≥10. Data was collected using a case-cohort design; of the 1,010 men, 73 (7.2%) patients developed metastatic disease as evidenced by bone and/or CT scans. These 73 men were defined as cases. A 20% random sample of the entire cohort was selected for analysis (202 patients), which included 19 cases. The remaining 54 cases not selected by random sampling were also included for analysis, resulting in a total of 256 patients. After exclusion for tissue unavailability and quality control, the independent validation cohort consisted of 219 patients (69 cases and 150 controls; median follow-up, 6.69 years).
Tissue Processing
Following histopathological review, total RNA was extracted and amplified from macrodissected FFPE primary prostatic adenocarcinoma specimens, and hybridized to Human Exon 1.0 ST GeneChips (Affymetrix, Santa Clara, Calif.) that profile coding and non-coding regions of the transcriptome using approximately 1.4 million probe selection regions, hereafter referred to as features.
Classifier Development
We compared and integrated two validated post-RP classifiers: GC and CAPRA-S. The GC was developed using a nested-case control study and contains the 22 biomarker set as disclosed in Example 3. The primary endpoint of GC was metastatic disease progression, defined as a positive bone or CT scan. Patients with GC scores≥0.4 were considered at high risk of progression to metastases. GC was independently validated in follow-up blinded study, of the patient population presented here. CAPRA-S is a nomogram that is based on standard clinical parameters, developed using the CAPSURE registry and biochemical recurrence (BCR) as the primary endpoint (Cooperberg, M. R., et al, The CAPRA-S score: A straightforward tool for improved prediction of outcomes after radical prostatectomy. Cancer, 117(22), 5039-46). CAPRA-S scores≥6 were considered at higher risk of BCR. Out of the 219 patients, 212 had sufficient data with which to calculate the CAPRA-S score. Of these, 28 had CSM events.
GC and CAPRA-S were integrated using a cox-proportional hazard model with prostate cancer specific mortality (CSM) as the primary endpoint. Although GC and CAPRA-S classifiers were developed for different endpoints (metastases and BCR, respectively), high scores in these models could translate to greater risk of CSM. Neither GC nor CAPRA-S were trained or further refined on this patient population and the raw classifier scores were used for an integrated genomic and clinical classifier. This integrated genomic-clinical classifier, characterized by the equation 0.20*CAPRA-S+5.68*GC, was validated using the optimism estimate of the c-index (calculated by bootstrapped validation), and its performance was further evaluated in an independent low risk patient population.
Statistical Analysis
The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to initially compare classifier performance to predict metastasis. Calibration plots, ROC curves and decision curves were used to assess overall discrimination. Survival decision curve analysis was used to compare the net benefit (e.g., gain in sensitivity weighted by loss in specificity) over a range of “decision-to-treat” threshold probabilities using the GC and CAPRA-S classifiers. The decision curve was evaluated for prediction of CSM within 5 years post-RP.
Cox proportional hazards analysis was used to test for associations between classifiers and adverse pathologic features (APFs) for the CSM endpoint. The proportional hazard analysis used a Barlow weighting scheme to account for the case-cohort design of the study, the Lin-Ying method was used to refine estimates of the variance. Cumulative incidence curves were constructed using Fine-Gray competing risks analysis to accommodate censoring due to death. Analyses were performed using R v2.14.1.
Results
Table 21 shows the clinical characteristics of the cohort used for this study. The high number of metastasis and CSM events demonstrated the high risk of this cohort. CAPRA-S and GC were the most prognostic indicators of CSM by survival ROC analysis (Table 22). GC had a survival AUC of 0.78 (0.65-0.89 95% CI) whereas CAPRA-S had a survival AUC of 0.76 (0.65-0.88 95% CI). Survival decision curve analysis (
When GC and CAPRA-S scores were compared, while trends suggest that both GC and CAPRA-S had high agreement with respect to patients that are truly at risk of lethal prostate cancer (
2 (5.0)
The cumulative incidence plot (accounting for other causes of death as a competing risk) for the CAPRA-S high risk group was shown (CAPRA-S≥6;
Univariable (UVA) and Multivariable analysis (MVA) was used to further assess the statistical significance of the classifiers and clinical variables individually (UVA) and in presence of other variables (MVA). As shown in Table 24, GC, CAPRA-S and pathological Gleason Score were highly statistically significant in UVA (p-value<0.001), whereas Lymph Node Involvement and Extra capsular Extension were significant (p-value=0.01). In MVA, while CAPRA-S was not included in multivariable analysis as the clinicopathologic factors in this analysis comprise CAPRA-S, only GC and pathological Gleason Score remained statistically significant (Table 24).
A second MVA between GC and CAPRA-S suggested both GC (HR:1.62, p<0.001) and CAPRA-S(HR:1.22, p=0.01) offered independent and statistically significant prognostic information. An integrated model improved risk stratification over either model alone (
In summary, among men treated with RP at high risk of recurrence based on clinicopathologic variables, both GC and CAPRA-S were significant predictors of CSM. GC was able to effectively ‘down-risk’ men stratified to high risk based on CAPRA-S alone. GC provided independent prognostic information, and a model integrating GC and CAPRA-S may further improve prediction of lethal prostate cancer.
Prostate cancer presents a significant population health burden in the United States. As the most frequently diagnosed cancer among men, almost 240,000 new cases are projected for 2013 (ACS, 2013). About half of these men will be treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) (Marciscano et al., 2012) and while many will achieve a durable cure, up to 50% will present with one or more adverse pathology features such as, seminal vesicle invasion (SVI), extracapsular extension (ECE) or positive surgical margins (Swanson et al., 2007, NCCN, 2013). Although these patients are considered by guidelines to be at an increased risk for disease progression, only a minority will develop metastatic disease and ultimately die of prostate cancer (Pound et al.). Further, while close monitoring with postoperative PSA testing can identify men at risk, the time to biochemical recurrence (BCR) after RP is not predictive for metastatic disease (Boorjian et al., 2011). And, while PSA doubling time (PSAdt) is a good surrogate, its accurate determination may not be possible in all patients as it requires precious time that the patient might not have (Freedland et al., 2007).
Treatment recommendations from National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines include radiation and/or hormone therapy or active surveillance (observation). These guidelines are based in part on results from three independent phase III randomized clinical trials that have demonstrated improvements in biochemical-free, metastasis-free and cancer-specific survival in high-risk post-RP men treated with radiation therapy (RT) (Bolla et al., 2005; Thompson et al., 2009; Wiegel et al., 2009). Despite this, deciding on appropriate use of radiation therapy post RP remains a challenging task. Knowledge that most clinically high-risk post-RP patients will never develop metastasis may be resulting in concern over inappropriate or over-utilization of secondary therapy in this population. Recognizing these factors, guidelines state that “predicting prognosis is essential for patient decision-making, treatment selection, and adjuvant therapy” (NCCN, 2013). Therefore, a need persists to more accurately characterize a patient's risk of metastasis following RP to guide treatment decisions.
Current assessment of risk used when considering postoperative secondary therapy is conducted based on individual clinicopathologic variables and/or through use of nomograms (Lughezzani et al, 2010). However, the ability to identify patients at substantially higher risk of metastasis and lethal prostate cancer on the basis of clinicopathologic features alone is limited. Therefore, the need is evident for novel risk prediction tools such as genomic information that reflect the true biological potential for tumor recurrence and spread. One such tool is a postoperative genomic classifier (GC) test as described in Example 3 that uses a whole-transcriptome microarray assay with formalin-fixed paraffin embedded prostate cancer specimens. Developed in collaboration with the Mayo Clinic, it was designed to predict early clinical metastasis following RP (Erho 2013). In a blinded clinical validation study of a contemporary high-risk population of post RP men with adverse pathology, the GC test was found to more accurately predict metastasis post-RP than clinical risk models (Davicioni, E. et al 2013).
In assessing a novel molecular test, experts have recommended that evidence be collected not only on the clinical validity of the test, but also on how use of the test influenced clinical practice management, a well-established measure of the test's clinical utility (Hornberger et al. Mole Gen, 2012, CDC, 2007). The primary objective of the study herein, was to determine how urologists' knowledge of results of the GC test influenced adjuvant and salvage treatment recommendations following RP.
Materials and Methods
This clinical utility study used a prospective, pre-post design, consisting of two independent sub-studies to assess patient cases at different points in patient management; both are collectively referred to herein as the DECIDE study (DECision-Impact DEcipher). In one study, urologist treatment recommendations were assessed in the adjuvant setting, following RP without any evidence of PSA rise or BCR. In the other, treatment recommendations were assessed for a different cohort of cases in the salvage setting, following RP with evidence of PSA rise or BCR. Urologists were invited to review a set of twelve cases and provide treatment recommendations for cases at each of the adjuvant and salvage time points. Urologists were presented de-identified clinical results from real patients involved in a previously conducted clinical validation study (Davicioni et al. 2013) and asked to provide treatment recommendations based solely on the clinical information provided (pre-GC). Then, results of the GC test were assessed for the same de-identified cases and urologists were asked again to provide treatment recommendations (post-GC). Twenty urologists participated in the adjuvant setting study and 15 in the salvage setting study.
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and the Belmont report and was reviewed and approved by an independent IRB (Quorum Review Inc., Seattle, Wash.).
The primary objective of this study was to assess the effect of the GC test on urologists' adjuvant and salvage treatment recommendations for clinically and pathologically high-risk post-RP cases. Secondary objectives were to investigate specific changes in recommendation, proclivity of the GC result to result in more or less intensification of treatment, the relative importance of the GC to clinical variables and impact of the GC on urologist confidence with treatment recommendations. Protocol-defined eligibility criteria for participation in the study required US board certified urologists practicing for at least 3 years and performing a high volume of RPs annually (Table 25). All urologists participating in the study were fellowship trained, urologic oncologists. Potential participants were identified through conference delegate lists and through established networks of key opinion leaders and were assessed for eligibility using an available database. Email invites were sent to 50 urologists meeting the inclusion criteria. Enrollment packages were sent to eligible urologists interested in participating in the study and included a cover letter, an educational primer on the GC test, a confidentiality agreement and a web link to the study's informed consent form (ICF) and electronic case report questionnaires (eCRQ).
Twenty-four high-risk post-RP patient cases (12 adjuvant and 12 salvage) were selected for urologist review from the previously conducted clinical validation study. The number of patient cases was selected to provide enough cases to sufficiently evaluate urologist decision making across a range of high-risk patient types and was limited to twelve cases in each treatment setting so as to minimize study participant fatigue in reviewing patient cases. All cases were high-risk post-RP as defined by the presence of one or more adverse pathological features including (1) pathological Gleason score 8+ or Gleason score 7 with primary pattern 4; (2) pathological stage T3a (extracapsular extension) or T3b (seminal vesicle invasion); (3) positive surgical margins; or (4) Gleason grade upgrade from biopsy to surgery. Cases that did not experience a PSA nadir after RP were excluded from the study.
Cases were selected on the basis of their clinical risk factors and the GC predicted probability of developing metastatic disease at 5 and 3 years post-RP for the adjuvant and salvage treatment settings, respectively. In the adjuvant setting, six cases with concordant clinical risk features and GC risk and six cases with discordant predicted risk were selected. In the salvage setting, these numbers were 5 and 7, respectively. Clinical risk was determined based on the following clinicopathological variables: age at surgery, pre-operative PSA levels, pathologic stage, biopsy and pathologic Gleason score, presence or absence of SVI, presence or absence of ECE, surgical margin status and lymph node involvement (Table 26). Additionally, PSA doubling time (PSAdt) and time to BCR were provided for cases evaluated in the salvage setting. High (low) GC risk was defined as a 5- or 3-year predicted probability of metastasis greater (less) than 6% for the adjuvant setting and greater (less) than 18% for the salvage setting. The predicted probability was obtained from a prediction curve that uses Cox regression modeling to convert the oligonucleotide microarray 22-marker GC score into a patient probability of clinical metastasis at 5 years post RP. A function was created that translated GC scores into 5-year clinical metastasis event probabilities, and the resulting line of best fit was used for future predictions for novel patients. The curve allowed for the translation of a GC score (x-axis) into a patient's probability of clinical metastasis (y-axis) by visual inspection or by simple calculation. The threshold cut-off for the GC test of ≥6% was used to identify a patient at elevated risk for clinical metastasis above the average risk for other similar high-risk (e.g., patients with one or more adverse pathology features) or conversely at lower risk than the average risk of such patients for patients with Decipher test results<6%.
All cases were de-identified and presented in a randomized fashion to eliminate bias toward the urologist's pre- and post-GC treatment recommendations. Cases were randomized both from urologist to urologist and from pre to post-GC. Clinical variables and GC test results information were provided to urologists through a secure online platform, and all treatment recommendations were collected using the eCRQ. Treatment recommendations included referral to a radiation oncologist for radiation and/or initiation of hormones, close observation, or any other recommendation not listed on the eCRQ.
Confidence intervals for probability of recommendation change from pre- to post-GC were constructed using a normal approximation, a significance level of 5%, and all recommendations were considered as independent. Chi-squared tests were used for univariate assessment of treatment predictors and multivariable analyses were performed using logistic regression. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS 9.2 (Cary, N.C.). All tests were 2-sided with a Type I error probability of 5%.
Results
Participating physicians were all practicing, ‘high-volume’ urologists performing an average of 184 RPs per year (Table 25). Twenty-one urologists from 18 different institutions across the US participated: 20 in the adjuvant, and 15 in the salvage settings. Fourteen of these urologists completed assessment of cases in both sub-studies. Of the 21 urologists, 38% (n=8) practiced in a community-based hospital or private practice setting and 62% (n=13) practiced in tertiary care centers, the majority (85%) of which are National Cancer Institute (NCI) designated comprehensive cancer centers. Urologists had been practicing and performing surgery for 3 to 25 years (mean 8.1 years) and all had extensive experience managing and treating patients with prostate cancer both before and after RP.
Twelve patient cases were retrospectively selected for urologist review in each of the adjuvant and salvage settings (Table 26). Half of the adjuvant patient cases were pre-operatively deemed low to intermediate risk according to D'Amico risk groups but were all subsequently up-graded/staged postoperatively. Furthermore, 75% of these cases presented with a pathologic Gleason score≥7, and 36% were ≥65 years of age at the time of surgery. For cases reviewed in the salvage setting, half had a time to BCR≤24 months, and 75% presented with a rapid PSAdt (<9 months). The majority (58%) of these cases were ≥65 years of age at the time of BCR.
In the adjuvant treatment setting, 43% (95% CI: 37-49%) of recommendations changed following review of the GC test results (Table 27). Specifically, among case evaluations with a pre-GC recommendation involving treatment, 27% (95% CI: 19-35%) of recommendations were changed to observation post-GC. Notably, for case evaluations with a pre-GC recommendation of radiation alone (n=100), 31% (95% CI: 22-41%) changed to observation post-GC (Table 27). Among the case evaluations where observation was initially chosen (n=114), treatment was recommended for 37% of case evaluations post-GC, primarily in favor of radiation therapy (37/42). This can be visualized in
In the salvage setting, treatment recommendations changed 53% (95% CI: 45-60%) of the time (Table 27). Among case evaluations with a pre-GC recommendation involving treatment (n=143), 16% (95% CI: 11-23%) changed to observation post-GC. Expectedly, there were fewer pre-GC recommendations of observation (n=31) for case evaluations with BCR, 61% were recommended to change from observation to any treatment post-GC with radiation alone (n=12) or in combination with hormonal therapy (n=7) (Table 27). Similar to the analysis of the adjuvant setting above, we observed a trend that showed alignment of observation versus treatment recommendations with the GC score, even though treatment recommendation rates were higher overall in the salvage setting (
To further examine the impact of the relationships between clinicopathologic variables and the GC test results in urologist treatment recommendations, we evaluated the proportion of urologists recommending treatment pre- and post-GC over the complete set of case evaluations as well as within individual clinicopathologic variables for high and low GC risk patients (Table 29A-B). GC risk was established based on whether the predicted probability of developing metastasis was above (high GC risk) or below (low GC risk) the average risk for the original study population (see methods). Overall, in the adjuvant setting, treatment was recommended 52% of the time pre-GC. Upon reviewing the GC test results, those with a low GC risk were recommended treatment only 21% of the time compared to those with a high GC risk who were recommended treatment 90% of the time (p<0.0001). Similarly, in the salvage setting, the overall proportion of treatment recommendation was 79% pre-GC, but post-GC fell to 75% in the low GC risk group and rose to 85% in the high-risk GC group (p=0.031).
When evaluating individual clinical variables in the adjuvant setting (Table 30), patients with ECE represented the subgroup with the highest proportion of treatment recommendations pre-GC (77%); this fell to 28% for low GC risk case evaluations and rose to 97% for high GC risk case evaluations post-GC (p<0.0001) (
To measure recommended changes in treatment intensity, we established a baseline clinical perception of risk (hereafter referred to as perceived risk). Cases were considered low perceived risk if less than half of urologists recommended treatment and high perceived risk if more than half recommended treatment in the absence of the GC test results. In the adjuvant and salvage settings we observed that if perceived risk was high but GC risk was low, then, respectively, 50% and 46% of recommendations reduced treatment intensity post-GC (e.g., radiation to observation or radiation/hormone combination to radiation only) (Table 28). Very few recommendations were made that increased treatment intensity, (only 5% and 3.8%, respectively for adjuvant and salvage treatment recommendations). Conversely, for cases with an initial low perceived risk but high GC risk, we observed a 55% and 58% increase in treatment intensity in both the adjuvant and salvage settings, respectively. Influence of GC risk on change in intensity for all clinical risk categories and treatment settings were highly statistically significant (<0.0001). Furthermore, a multivariable model adjusting for the pre-GC clinical risk showed that GC risk influenced change in treatment recommendation intensity (p<0.0001). To understand the extent to which the GC test result impacts confidence in making a treatment recommendation, urologists were asked to report on the degree to which they felt confident in the treatment recommendation made for case evaluations both pre- and post-GC, as well as the extent to which they felt the GC test result influenced those treatment recommendations. Results showed that for case evaluations where a treatment recommendation was made, urologist confidence in treatment recommendations increased by 25% and 23% in the adjuvant and salvage settings, respectively. Additionally, urologists reported that the GC test result influenced their treatment recommendation in 83.5% (adjuvant) and 87.4% (salvage) of case evaluations (Table 31). As shown in
This clinical utility study was designed to prospectively assess the effect of a genomic classifier (GC) test that predicts metastasis following RP on urologists' adjuvant and salvage treatment recommendations. The performance of the GC test was previously reported in a blinded, independent validation study of a population of 1,010 men at high risk of recurrence (based on adverse pathology) post RP. That study revealed that 60% of clinically high-risk patients would be reclassified as low risk with a cumulative incidence of metastasis of only 2.4% at 5 years post RP. Conversely, patients with the highest GC scores (19% of the population) had nearly 10 times higher cumulative incidence of metastasis by 5 years. Findings from this current study demonstrated that knowledge of the GC test result frequently impacted urologists' treatment recommendations in both the adjuvant (43%) and salvage settings (53%). Furthermore, we were able to show that for patients with low GC risk, while pre-GC urologists recommended treatment 43% of the time, post-GC they were recommended to observation 79% of the time. Taken together, the clinical validation and utility results implied that among the population of prostate cancer patients at high-risk of recurrence following RP, the majority of patients tested post GC will be recommended to close observation.
Guidelines on evidence development for molecular tests drafted in the past 3-5 years have urged going beyond obtaining evidence on assay analytical and clinical validity, encouraging additional research on how a test influences clinical practice management. To date in this nascent field, the number of published studies is fairly limited, but growing. In a clinical study of a molecular assay for stage II colon cancer, Srivastava et al. found that physicians changed chemotherapy decisions in 45% of patients, which fully validated predictions from a simulation of changes in NCCN guideline-directed treatment. One of the most studied areas of practice management change in molecular medicine has been risk prediction in breast cancer. In a comprehensive and systematic review of clinical validity and changes in clinical practice patterns, Hornberger et al. found 15 studies reporting on 5 different tests. They found chemotherapy recommendation changed between <1%-13% as reported in 4 studies of an online clinical decision support tool, compared with a median change across all studies of less than 35% in recommendations for a multi-gene assay. In comparison with these examples of accepted oncology tests, the finding in our study of a 43-53% change in recommendation upon receipt of the test results is supportive evidence that the GC test provides additional useful clinical information to guide therapy selection.
This study revealed relevant findings relating to current practice patterns for high-risk patients post-RP and confirmed urologist proclivity for not only increased salvage treatment at the point of BCR but also increased intensification of treatment when compared to the adjuvant setting. Overall, urologists' recommended treatment over 1.5 times as often in the salvage versus the adjuvant setting; treatment recommendations were made for 79% of case evaluations pre-GC in the salvage setting, 39% of which involved a recommendation for multi-modal (e.g., radiation and hormone) therapy. This compares to a recommendation for multi-modal therapy in only 19% of case evaluations pre-GC in the adjuvant setting. In addition, the findings imply a potential to over-treat in the salvage setting as evidence suggested that even in patients presenting with BCR, less than one-third will go on to develop metastasis. This is not without consequences for the patient as both postoperative radiation and hormone therapy incur with considerable morbidities including urinary incontinence and impotence, which can affect long-term patient quality of life.
Results from this study also confirmed that urologist decision-making in the adjuvant setting was mainly focused on whether or not to recommend postoperative radiation therapy. Prior to presentation of the GC test results, urologists recommended treatment in 52% of case evaluations with 99% of those recommendations including radiation therapy and only 20% of recommendations including hormone therapy. Accurate direction of radiation therapy to patients who are at highest biological risk for developing metastasis is critical as the morbidities and costs associated with treating patients with radiation modalities such as IMRT run high. Furthermore, we observed that the GC risk significantly influenced the treatment recommendations irrespective of the presence or absence of specific clinicopathogic features. Additionally, these findings suggested that in the salvage setting, the sensitivity of PSA rise may motivate urologists to recommend treatment despite its poor specificity. This hinted towards a role for the GC test to improve urologist decision-making in this setting. Similar results were found relating to the intensification of treatment, where changes in intensity were driven primarily by GC risk rather than the perceived risk. This suggested that given the information from the GC test, presumably measuring the true biological potential of a patient's tumor, urologists are more willing to commit to the intensification of therapy than if this recommendation were solely based on rising PSA and clinicopathologic variables (e.g., pre-GC).
Treatment recommendations changed in 43% of adjuvant setting case evaluations and 53% of salvage setting case evaluations. These findings demonstrated that knowledge of the genomic biomarker information in this GC test frequently influences these urologists' judgments about appropriate treatment in both the adjuvant and salvage settings.
Conclusion:
The DECIDE study assessed the effect of the GC test on urologist treatment recommendations for high-risk case evaluations in the adjuvant and salvage treatment settings. Findings demonstrated that knowledge of the GC test result frequently impacted urologists' treatment recommendations in both the adjuvant and salvage settings. Furthermore, the GC test appeared to better direct urologist treatment recommendations irrespective of the presence or absence of conventional pathology and clinical variables that are currently used to assess risk in these patients.
In conclusion, this study suggested that when implemented into routine clinical practice, the GC test had the potential to change treatment recommendations after radical prostatectomy and better identify patients that may benefit from intensive multimodal therapy, while sparing those who can be closely observed without initiating aggressive secondary therapy.
Roughly 50,000 men per year will present with biochemical recurrence (BCR) following local treatment for prostate cancer. These men, with rising PSAs as the lone indicator of recurrence, present a management dilemma due to their varied outcomes. While the post-radical prostatectomy (RP) recurrence group of patients is highly enriched for those who will develop lethal disease, many of these patients will experience BCR without developing subsequent metastases. Thus, there is a clear need to improve patient risk stratification in this context. Here, we evaluated a genomic classifier (GC, see Example 3) in men with BCR for its ability to predict clinical metastasis (e.g. positive bone or CT scans).
Methods
Patient Cohort
The aim of this study was to determine whether molecular features of primary prostate tumor specimens could aid in the prediction of outcomes at the time of BCR. Accordingly, we selected 110 Caucasian patients from a high risk cohort of over 1,000 men who experienced BCR following radical prostatectomy and for whom tissue was available (see Example 1). Only men with adenocarcinoma at the time of radical prostatectomy were included. Following prostatectomy, men were typically followed by a PSA measurement every 3 months for the first year, every 6 months for the second year and then annually thereafter. Biochemical recurrence was defined as a PSA>0.2 ng/ml with a subsequent confirmatory value. At the time of biochemical recurrence, men were restaged with a CT or MRI as well as a bone scan which were then performed on a yearly basis. Time to biochemical recurrence was defined as the time from radical prostatectomy to first detectable PSA>0.2 ng/ml. Metastasis was defined as a positive bone scan or visceral or extra-pelvic nodal metastasis seen on CT scan. Men who experienced BCR less than 6 months or had missing clinicopathologic variables were excluded from the analyses (n=85). Men who experienced metastasis following biochemical recurrence were designated as “Mets” and men without metastasis after biochemical recurrence were designated as “No-Mets”. Adjuvant setting was defined as any treatment within 90 days after surgery. Salvage therapy was defined as any treatment after 90 days. Patient tumor and treatment characteristics are detailed in Table 33.
Specimen Selection and Processing
Following histopathological review, formalin-fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) prostatic adenocarcinoma tissues from the primary tumor at the time of prostatectomy were macrodissected. Total RNA was then extracted and purified using RNeasy FFPE nucleic acid extraction kit (Qiagen Inc., Valencia, Calif.), and subjected to whole-transcriptome amplification using the WT-Ovation FFPE system (NuGen, San Carlos, Calif.). Amplified products were fragmented, labeled, and hybridized to Human Exon 1.0 ST GeneChips (Affymetrix, Santa Clara, Calif.) that profile coding and non-coding regions of the transcriptome using approximately 1.4 million probe selection regions, each representing a genomic biomarker or feature. Following microarray quality control using the Affymetrix Power Tools packages, probeset summarization and normalization was performed by frozen robust multi-array analysis, which is available through Bioconductor. Human Exon GeneChip files corresponding to these cases are available from the National Center for Biotechnology Information's Gene Expression Omnibus database.
Calculation of GC Scores, PSADT and Nomogram Scores
Previously we described a validated 22-marker genomic classifier (GC) (see Example 3). Here we employed the same GC, with GC scores outputted as a value between 0 and 1. Depending on the analysis, GC score were treated as a categorical or continuous variable. Graphical diagnostic, receiver operating characteristic (ROC)-based methods on the training dataset was used to estimate an optimal cut-off for GC score. PSADT a measure of how fast the PSA levels doubles was calculated by natural log of 2 divided by slope of linear regression line of log 2 of PSA measures over time. CAPRA-S scores were calculated as described in Cooperberg et al. (Cooperberg Cancer 2011), and Stephenson 5 year probability of survival were calculated using nomogram described in Stephenson et al.
Statistical Analyses
All statistical analyses were performed in R v2.14.1. All tests were two-sided with a type I error probability of 5%. GC was compared to standard clinicopathologic variables, PSADT, time to BCR, clinical-only classifiers (CC, CAPRA-S scores and Stephenson's nomogram) and the integrated clinical and genomic classifier (GCC) for predicting metastatic disease. The concordance summary index (extension of c-index), an extension of area under the ROC curve (AUC) for censored data was used to compare classifier performance to predict metastasis. For the survival ROC function, the nearest-neighbour estimator was used with λ=0.002 to approximate survival function density. Calibration plots were used to assess the agreement between observed and predicted outcomes. Decision curve analysis was used to assess the net increase/decrease in the proportion of necessary/unnecessary treated patients. Survival ROC and decision curves were evaluated for prediction of metastasis within 3 years post-BCR.
Cox Proportional Hazard Regression model for case-cohort design was used to evaluate the prognostic value and significance of GC and clinicopathologic risk factors in predicting the development of metastasis after BCR. Proportional hazards assumptions of the Cox model were confirmed by evaluating the scaled Schoenfeld residuals. GC was used as a continuous variable (step size=0.1); pathological Gleason score was dichotomized into <8 and ≥8 considering the small number of patients who had the score of 6 and below; pre-operative PSA values were log transformed due to their skewed distribution; SVI, SM, extra-capsular extension (ECE) were used as binary variables. In the Cox model, the estimated risks were adjusted for the administration of adjuvant hormone therapy. Cumulative incidence curves were constructed using Fine-Gray competing risks analysis to estimate the risk of failure due to prostate cancer only, after removing other type of failures (e.g. other reason for death). Time-dependent analyses were performed by weighting patients without the event as suggested by Barlow.
Results
Characteristics of men in our cohort who experienced BCR following RP are detailed in Table 33. Median time to BCR was 14.60 months (range 1.1-85.33). Men experiencing metastasis following BCR (“mets”) did so with a median time of 37.16 months (range 3.15-111.54). These men had higher pathological grade and stage at prostatectomy, higher pre-operative PSAs, a more rapid time to BCR and more rapid PSAdTs (Table 33). They were also more likely to receive adjuvant and salvage therapies (Table 33).
Discrimination plots of the GC scores for mets (right—light grey circles) and no-mets (left—dark grey circles) patients is shown in
The cumulative incidence of GC high risk patients were statistically higher than GC low risk patients at any point in time following BCR using an optimal ROC-based cut-off of ≥0.4, encompassing 73% of men who would develop metastasis (
As shown in
Majority of patients with GC<0.4 (64%) did not develop metastatic disease by the end of study follow-up time (
Hypothetically, if a decision to treat is made when a classifier implies a risk of 25% or higher, using the estimated net benefit, it can be shown that the reduction in unnecessary treatments among 100 patients using the GC model was 31 patients in comparison to maximum 10 patients for clinical-only models (
Univariable (UVA) and Multivariable analysis (MVA) based on Cox Proportional Hazard was used to further assess the statistical significance of the classifiers and clinical variables individually (UVA) and in presence of other variables (MVA). These analyses show that GC accurately predicts metastasis following BCR. In univariable analysis, GC score predicted metastasis following BCR, as did clinicopathologic variables and clinical-only models (Table 37 and Table 38). GC score and pathological Gleason Score remained the only significant predictors of metastatic disease in a multivariable model after adjusting for clinicopathologic information (Table 37). In multivariable models involving GC and clinical-only classifiers, GC remained significant while the clinical-only classifiers were not significant (Table 38).
In summary, when compared to clinicopathologic variables, GC better predicted metastatic progression among our cohort of men with BCR following RP. These results suggested that use of GC allowed for better selection of men requiring additional treatment at the time of BCR.
The 43 biomarkers discovered in Example 2 (Table 2) were assessed for their performance across a range of different metrics and endpoints.
In tables 39 to 48, those biomarkers that were found as univariable classifiers to be statistically significant in the training and testing sets (see Example 1) based on a Wilcoxon test (p-value<=0.05) for the Area under the ROC curve (AUC) metric, are shown for a number of relevant clinical endpoints: Extra Capsular Extension (ECE), Seminal Vesicle Invasion (SVI), Surgical Margin Status (SMS), Lymph Node Involvement (LNI), Biochemical Recurrence Event (BCR), Local Recurrence Event (LCR), Metastasis Event (Mets Event), Prostate Cancer Specific Mortality Event (PCSM), Overall Survival (OS), pathological Gleason (pathGS) and Prostate Specific Antigen Doubling Time (PSADT). Endpoints associated to a time-to-event present also metrics that allow to consider this component in the performance assessment. Whereas results are shown for the testing set (as defined in Example 1), these biomarkers were significant also in the training set of the discovery study.
Further significance of the selected features was evidenced by multiple metrics and are also listed in tables 39 to 48 (either in their raw values or as their associated P-value for assessment of statistical significance) including:
The associated p-value provided for the metrics gives a measure of the statistical significance of the corresponding metric. The threshold of P-value<=0.05 is used as a way of defining those features that are statistically significant for the given metric and endpoint. The AUC lower and AUC upper, as well as the Accuracy lower and Accuracy upper, represent the lower and upper bound of the 95% Confidence Interval for those metrics.
In addition to the good performance of these variables as univariable predictors, the combination of them in pairs (pairwise classifiers) through a machine learning algorithm results in enhanced performance. As shown in Tables 49 to 52, pairwise classifiers can result in an improved performance for a given endpoint compared to their univariable counterparts, with all the classifiers listed presenting statistical significance based on, at least, Wilcoxon P-value. In those tables, each classifier name is described by the machine learning algorithm that combines the biomarkers as well as the SEQ ID NO of the corresponding biomarkers (Table 2, Table 11). The machine learning algorithms included in this analysis are Naïve Bayes (NB), recursive Partitioning (Rpart), Support Vector Machines (SVMs), Random Forest (RF) and K Nearest Neighbors (KNN). These machine learning algorithms were executed with default parameters using packages rpart 4.1-0, HDclassif 1.2.2, randomForest 4.6-7, caret 5.15-61, cluster 1.14.3, e1071 1.6-1, class 7.3-5 in R. Tables 49 to 52 contain metrics and endpoints described above for tables 39 to 48.
In order to define, from the entire set of 1.4 million features, a comprehensive library of biomarkers that presents prognostic ability, the Discovery Set (Training and Testing) presented in Example 1 was processed as follows. First, all features with a probe count lower than 4 or with cross-hybridizing probes as defined by affymetrix (www.affymetrix.com) were removed. Second, a background filter was applied in order to ensure signal in the expression capture for each feature. To achieve this, features that had a median expression value in the group of mets patients and in the group of non-mets patients (separately) lower than 1.2 times the background signal (captured by the control antigenomic probes defined by affymetrix (www.affymetrix.com)) were removed. Third, the statistical significance of the differential expression observed between the mets and non-mets groups was assessed using the Kolmogorov-Smimov test for each feature. Those features with a p-value greater than 0.05 were removed. Last, a Random forest variable importance was calculated by building a random forest with 450,000 trees. Features with Mean Decrease Gini (or MDG)<=0 were discarded and features with MDG>6.5e-3 and Mean Decrease in Accuracy (or MDA)>0 were selected, reducing the feature set to 2,040 features. MDA is defined as the average difference in accuracy of the true variable vs the variable randomized for trees in the forest. MDG is defined as the mean of the change in gini between a parent node and a child node when splitting on a variable across the whole forest.
These represent the most important features (based on MDG and MDA) that are statistically significant (based on Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test) for the differential expression between mets and non-mets patients (Table 55) and provides a biomarker library for prostate cancer progression.
In tables 53 and 54, those biomarkers from the 2,040 in the library that were found statistically significant in the training and testing sets based on a Wilcoxon test (p-value<=0.05) for the Area under the ROC curve (AUC) metric, are shown for Biochemical Recurrence Event (BCR) and Metastasis Event (Mets Event). Whereas results are shown for the testing set (as defined in Example 1), these biomarkers were significant also in the training set of the discovery study.
Further significance of the selected features was evidenced by multiple metrics and are also listed in tables 53 and 54. Metrics are defined in Example 12.
These results demonstrate, based on the multiple metrics shown, that the library of biomarkers built has the ability to capture the biology underlying the progression of prostate cancer, as defined by diverse clinical variables.
This application claims the benefit of priority under § 119(e) of U.S. Ser. No. 61/684,066 filed Aug. 16, 2012, U.S. Ser. No. 61/764,365 filed Feb. 13, 2013 and U.S. Ser. No. 61/783,124, filed Mar. 14, 2013, the entire contents of each are herein incorporated by reference.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3645691 | Guenter et al. | Feb 1972 | A |
| 3687808 | Thomas, Jr. et al. | Aug 1972 | A |
| 4323546 | Crockfor et al. | Apr 1982 | A |
| 4683195 | Mullis et al. | Jul 1987 | A |
| 4683202 | Mullis et al. | Jul 1987 | A |
| 4800159 | Mullis et al. | Jan 1989 | A |
| 4965188 | Mullis et al. | Oct 1990 | A |
| 5130238 | Malek et al. | Jul 1992 | A |
| 5143854 | Pinung et al. | Sep 1992 | A |
| 5225326 | Bresser et al. | Jul 1993 | A |
| 5270184 | Walker et al. | Dec 1993 | A |
| 5283174 | Arnold et al. | Feb 1994 | A |
| 5288514 | Ellman | Feb 1994 | A |
| 5384261 | Winkle et al. | Jan 1995 | A |
| 5399491 | Kacian et al. | Mar 1995 | A |
| 5455166 | Walker | Oct 1995 | A |
| 5480784 | Kacian et al. | Jan 1996 | A |
| 5494810 | Barany et al. | Feb 1996 | A |
| 5538848 | Livak et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
| 5545524 | Trent et al. | Aug 1996 | A |
| 5677195 | Winkler et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
| 5705365 | Ryder et al. | Jan 1998 | A |
| 5710029 | Ryder et al. | Jan 1998 | A |
| 5711029 | Ryder et al. | Jan 1998 | A |
| 5744305 | Fodor et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
| 5814447 | Ishiguro et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
| 5824518 | Kacian et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5830711 | Barany et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5846717 | Brow et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
| 5854033 | Lizardi | Dec 1998 | A |
| 5854206 | Twardzik et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
| 5888779 | Kacian et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
| 5925517 | Tyagi et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
| 5928862 | Morrison | Jul 1999 | A |
| 5965360 | Zain et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
| 5985557 | Prudent et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5989815 | Skolnick et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
| 5994069 | Hall et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
| 6001567 | Brow et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6022692 | Coulie et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6027887 | Zavada et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
| 6034218 | Reed et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
| 6090543 | Prudent et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
| 6121489 | Dorner et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
| 6136182 | Dolan et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
| 6150097 | Tyagi et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
| 6198107 | Seville | Mar 2001 | B1 |
| 6218523 | French | Apr 2001 | B1 |
| 6225051 | Sugiyama et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
| 6251639 | Kurn | Jun 2001 | B1 |
| 6262245 | Xu et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
| 6268142 | Duff et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
| 6303305 | Wittwer et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
| 6410278 | Notomi et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
| 6436642 | Gould-Rothberg et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
| 6541205 | Yokoyama et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
| 6573043 | Cohen et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
| 6630358 | Wagner et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
| 6723506 | Fletcher et al. | Apr 2004 | B2 |
| 6828429 | Srivastava et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
| 7008765 | Bussemakers et al. | Mar 2006 | B1 |
| 7186514 | Zavada et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
| 7211390 | Rothberg et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
| 7244559 | Rothberg et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
| 7264929 | Rothberg et al. | Sep 2007 | B2 |
| 7280922 | Mei et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
| 7300788 | Matsuzaki et al. | Nov 2007 | B2 |
| 7319011 | Riggins et al. | Jan 2008 | B2 |
| 7323305 | Leamon et al. | Jan 2008 | B2 |
| 7335762 | Rothberg et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
| 7358061 | Yamamoto et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
| 7361488 | Fan et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
| 7378233 | Sidransky et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
| 7407755 | Lubinski et al. | Aug 2008 | B2 |
| 7541169 | Freimuth et al. | Jun 2009 | B2 |
| 7598052 | Giordanos et al. | Oct 2009 | B2 |
| 7662553 | Lenz et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
| 7767391 | Scott et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
| 7901881 | Libutti et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
| 7901888 | Kebebew | Mar 2011 | B2 |
| 7914988 | Chudin et al. | Mar 2011 | B1 |
| 7927826 | Riggins et al. | Apr 2011 | B2 |
| 8008009 | Choquet-Kastylevsky et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
| 8202692 | Giordano et al. | Jun 2012 | B2 |
| 8273539 | Klee et al. | Sep 2012 | B2 |
| 8293880 | Cote et al. | Oct 2012 | B2 |
| 8299233 | Andre et al. | Oct 2012 | B2 |
| 8338109 | Vasmatzis et al. | Dec 2012 | B2 |
| 8354228 | Ron | Jan 2013 | B2 |
| 8465914 | Brown et al. | Jun 2013 | B2 |
| 8541170 | Kennedy et al. | Sep 2013 | B2 |
| 8568971 | Brown et al. | Oct 2013 | B2 |
| 8669057 | Kennedy et al. | Mar 2014 | B2 |
| 8802599 | Aharonov et al. | Aug 2014 | B2 |
| 8828656 | Bullerdiek et al. | Sep 2014 | B2 |
| 8877445 | Shackney | Nov 2014 | B2 |
| 8945829 | Keutgen et al. | Feb 2015 | B2 |
| 9040286 | Zon et al. | May 2015 | B2 |
| 9074258 | Davicion et al. | Jul 2015 | B2 |
| 9096906 | Aharonov et al. | Aug 2015 | B2 |
| 9157123 | Oct 2015 | B2 | |
| 9175352 | Keutgen et al. | Nov 2015 | B2 |
| 9206481 | Srivastava et al. | Dec 2015 | B2 |
| 9206482 | Davicloni et al. | Dec 2015 | B2 |
| 9234244 | Zeiger et al. | Jan 2016 | B2 |
| 9435812 | Pestano et al. | Sep 2016 | B2 |
| 9495515 | Giulia et al. | Nov 2016 | B1 |
| 9534249 | Vasmatzis et al. | Jan 2017 | B2 |
| 9587279 | Fahey, III et al. | Mar 2017 | B2 |
| 9617604 | Davicion et al. | Apr 2017 | B2 |
| 9708667 | Yanai et al. | Jul 2017 | B2 |
| 9714452 | Davicioni et al. | Jul 2017 | B2 |
| 9856537 | Kennedy et al. | Jan 2018 | B2 |
| 9994907 | Davicioni et al. | Jun 2018 | B2 |
| 10114924 | Kennedy et al. | Oct 2018 | B2 |
| 10407731 | Klee et al. | Sep 2019 | B2 |
| 10422009 | Davicioni et al. | Sep 2019 | B2 |
| 10494677 | Vasmatzis et al. | Dec 2019 | B2 |
| 20010051344 | Shalon et al. | Dec 2001 | A1 |
| 20020076735 | Williams et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
| 20020090633 | Becker et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
| 20020119463 | Fads | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020168638 | Schlegel et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
| 20020169137 | Reiner et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
| 20020182586 | Morris et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20030119168 | Madison et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
| 20030152980 | Golub et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
| 20030175736 | Chinnaiyan et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
| 20030185830 | Xu et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20030186248 | Erlander et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20030190602 | Pressman et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20030194734 | Jatkoe | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20030224399 | Reed et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
| 20030235820 | Mack et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
| 20040009481 | Schlegel et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
| 20040019466 | Minor et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
| 20040029114 | Mack et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
| 20040058378 | Kong et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
| 20040259086 | Schlegel et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20050042222 | Yamamoto et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
| 20050042638 | Arnold et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
| 20050048533 | Sidransky et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050064455 | Baker et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
| 20050118625 | Mounts | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050137805 | Lewin et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050202442 | Morris et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050227917 | Williams et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
| 20050240357 | Minor | Oct 2005 | A1 |
| 20050250125 | Novakoff | Nov 2005 | A1 |
| 20050260646 | Baker et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
| 20050266443 | Croce et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20050266459 | Poulsen | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20060019256 | Clarke et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
| 20060019615 | Ditmer | Jan 2006 | A1 |
| 20060035244 | Riggins et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
| 20060046253 | Nakao | Mar 2006 | A1 |
| 20060046265 | Becker et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
| 20060083744 | Chen et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060088851 | Erlander et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
| 20060094061 | Brys et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060105360 | Croce et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
| 20060127907 | Matsubara et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060134663 | Harkin et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
| 20060204989 | Kopreski | Sep 2006 | A1 |
| 20060211017 | Chinnaiyan et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
| 20070010469 | Chan | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070020657 | Grebe et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070031873 | Wang et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
| 20070037165 | Venter et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
| 20070048738 | Donkena et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070065827 | Pauloski et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070065833 | Gupta | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070083334 | Mintz et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
| 20070099197 | Afar et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
| 20070099209 | Clarke et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
| 20070105133 | Clarke et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
| 20070148667 | Williams et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
| 20070148687 | Bedingham et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
| 20070161004 | Brown et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20070172841 | Wang | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20070172844 | Lancaster et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20070212702 | Tomlins et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070220621 | Clarke et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070238119 | Yu et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20070259352 | Bentwich et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20070275915 | Hallenbeck et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
| 20080009001 | Bettuzzi et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080028302 | Meschkat | Jan 2008 | A1 |
| 20080044824 | Giordano et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20080076674 | Litman et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
| 20080124344 | Combs et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080131892 | Becker et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
| 20080145841 | Libutti et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
| 20080254470 | Berlkin | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080269157 | Srivastava et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080274457 | Eng et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
| 20080281568 | Kao et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
| 20090020433 | Cohen et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
| 20090036415 | Rubin et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
| 20090062144 | Guo | Mar 2009 | A1 |
| 20090075921 | Ikegawa | Mar 2009 | A1 |
| 20090149333 | Knudsen et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
| 20090191535 | Connelly et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
| 20090204333 | Friend et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
| 20090239221 | Chinnaiyan et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
| 20090280490 | Baker et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
| 20090298082 | Klee | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20100055704 | Giordano et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100075384 | Kong et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
| 20100099093 | Weaver et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
| 20100130377 | Vasmatzis et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
| 20100131286 | Houlgatte et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
| 20100131432 | Kennedy et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
| 20100178653 | Aharonov et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
| 20100021538 | Iljin et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
| 20100215638 | Ijin et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
| 20100257617 | Ami et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
| 20100279327 | Ossovskaya | Nov 2010 | A1 |
| 20100285979 | Zeiger et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
| 20110009286 | Andre et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
| 20110045462 | Fu et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
| 20110092375 | Zamore et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
| 20110136683 | Davicioni | Jun 2011 | A1 |
| 20110152110 | Vierlinger et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
| 20110178163 | Chowdhury | Jul 2011 | A1 |
| 20110212855 | Rafnar et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110229894 | Levy et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110230372 | Willman et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110236903 | McClelland | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20110287946 | Gudmundsson et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
| 20110294123 | Nakamura et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
| 20110312520 | Kennedy et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
| 20120015839 | Chinnaiyan | Jan 2012 | A1 |
| 20120015843 | Von et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
| 20120041274 | Stone et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
| 20120108453 | Smit et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120115743 | Davicioni et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120122698 | Stacey et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120122718 | Reisman | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120157334 | Beaudenon-Huibregtse et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
| 20120172243 | Davicioni et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
| 20120214165 | Walfish et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120220474 | Kennedy et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
| 20120304318 | Ohnuma et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
| 20130004974 | Klee et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
| 20130023434 | Van Laar | Jan 2013 | A1 |
| 20130142728 | Beaudenon-Huibregtse et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
| 20130150257 | Abdueva et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
| 20130172203 | Yeatman et al. | Jul 2013 | A1 |
| 20130184999 | Ding | Jul 2013 | A1 |
| 20130196866 | Pestano et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
| 20130225662 | Kennedy et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
| 20130231258 | Wilde et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
| 20130273543 | Gudmundsson et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20130302808 | Vasmatzis | Nov 2013 | A1 |
| 20130302810 | Latham et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
| 20130303826 | Jurisica et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
| 20140030714 | Paschke et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
| 20140080731 | Davicioni et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
| 20140087961 | Sulem et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
| 20140099261 | Keutgen et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
| 20140121126 | Bivona et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
| 20140143188 | Mackey et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
| 20140228237 | Kennedy et al. | Aug 2014 | A1 |
| 20140243240 | Soldin et al. | Aug 2014 | A1 |
| 20140302042 | Chin et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
| 20140315199 | Rhodes et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
| 20140315739 | Aharonov et al. | Oct 2014 | A1 |
| 20140349856 | Schnabel et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
| 20140349864 | Kennedy et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
| 20140371096 | Umbright et al. | Dec 2014 | A1 |
| 20150011401 | Davicioni et al. | Jan 2015 | A1 |
| 20150038376 | Tian et al. | Feb 2015 | A1 |
| 20150099665 | Rosenfeld et al. | Apr 2015 | A1 |
| 20150141470 | Garraway et al. | May 2015 | A1 |
| 20150275306 | Bernards et al. | Oct 2015 | A1 |
| 20150292030 | McConkey | Oct 2015 | A1 |
| 20150299808 | Gonzalez et al. | Oct 2015 | A1 |
| 20150307947 | Basu et al. | Oct 2015 | A1 |
| 20150329915 | Davicioni et al. | Nov 2015 | A1 |
| 20150368724 | Aharonov et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
| 20160024586 | Delfour et al. | Jan 2016 | A1 |
| 20160032395 | Davicioni et al. | Feb 2016 | A1 |
| 20160032400 | Gomis et al. | Feb 2016 | A1 |
| 20160068915 | Kennedy et al. | Mar 2016 | A1 |
| 20160076108 | Davicioni et al. | Mar 2016 | A1 |
| 20160115546 | Rosenfeld et al. | Apr 2016 | A1 |
| 20160120832 | Rabinowitz et al. | May 2016 | A1 |
| 20160251729 | Chinnaiyan et al. | Sep 2016 | A1 |
| 20160312305 | Kennedy et al. | Oct 2016 | A1 |
| 20160312306 | Kennedy et al. | Oct 2016 | A1 |
| 20160312307 | Kennedy et al. | Oct 2016 | A1 |
| 20160312308 | Kennedy et al. | Oct 2016 | A1 |
| 20160348184 | Chinnaiyan | Dec 2016 | A1 |
| 20170016076 | Barnett-Itzhaki et al. | Jan 2017 | A1 |
| 20170145513 | Kennedy et al. | May 2017 | A1 |
| 20170166980 | Fahey, III et al. | Jun 2017 | A1 |
| 20170329894 | Kennedy et al. | Nov 2017 | A1 |
| 20180016642 | Kennedy et al. | Jan 2018 | A1 |
| 20180216197 | Davicioni et al. | Jan 2018 | A1 |
| 20180030540 | Davicioni et al. | Feb 2018 | A1 |
| 20180068058 | Abdueva et al. | Mar 2018 | A1 |
| 20180112275 | Davicioni et al. | Apr 2018 | A1 |
| 20180122508 | Wilde et al. | May 2018 | A1 |
| 20180127832 | Kennedy et al. | May 2018 | A1 |
| 20180291459 | Al-Deen Ashab et al. | Oct 2018 | A1 |
| 20190017123 | Davicioni et al. | Jan 2019 | A1 |
| 20190191133 | Ostrow | Jun 2019 | A1 |
| 20190204322 | Alshalalfa et al. | Jul 2019 | A1 |
| 20190218621 | Davicioni | Jul 2019 | A1 |
| 20200165682 | Chinnaiyan et al. | May 2020 | A1 |
| 20200224276 | Chinnaiyan et al. | Jul 2020 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 0 684 315 | Nov 1995 | EP |
| 1 409 727 | Nov 2005 | EP |
| 2 366 800 | Sep 2011 | EP |
| WO 1990015070 | Dec 1990 | WO |
| WO 1992010092 | Jun 1992 | WO |
| WO 1993009668 | May 1993 | WO |
| WO 1993022684 | Nov 1993 | WO |
| WO 1998045420 | Oct 1998 | WO |
| WO 2001060860 | Aug 2001 | WO |
| WO 2001066753 | Sep 2001 | WO |
| WO 2002000929 | Jan 2002 | WO |
| WO 2003012067 | Feb 2003 | WO |
| WO 2004037972 | May 2004 | WO |
| WO 2005040396 | May 2005 | WO |
| WO 2005085471 | Sep 2005 | WO |
| WO 2005100608 | Oct 2005 | WO |
| WO 2006047484 | May 2006 | WO |
| WO 2006091776 | Aug 2006 | WO |
| WO 2006110264 | Oct 2006 | WO |
| WO 2006127537 | Nov 2006 | WO |
| WO 2006135596 | Dec 2006 | WO |
| WO 2007056049 | May 2007 | WO |
| WO 2007070621 | Jun 2007 | WO |
| WO 07081740 | Jul 2007 | WO |
| WO 2007081720 | Jul 2007 | WO |
| WO 2008023087 | Feb 2008 | WO |
| WO 2008046911 | Apr 2008 | WO |
| WO 2008086478 | Jul 2008 | WO |
| WO 2008112283 | Sep 2008 | WO |
| WO 2009009432 | Jan 2009 | WO |
| WO 2009020521 | Feb 2009 | WO |
| WO 2009020905 | Feb 2009 | WO |
| WO 09029266 | Mar 2009 | WO |
| WO 2009045115 | Apr 2009 | WO |
| WO 09074968 | Jun 2009 | WO |
| WO 2009074968 | Jun 2009 | WO |
| WO 2009143603 | Dec 2009 | WO |
| WO 10018601 | Feb 2010 | WO |
| WO 2010056374 | May 2010 | WO |
| WO 10073248 | Jul 2010 | WO |
| WO 2010056374 | Sep 2010 | WO |
| WO 2010099598 | Sep 2010 | WO |
| WO 10123626 | Oct 2010 | WO |
| WO 2010124372 | Nov 2010 | WO |
| WO 2011150453 | Dec 2011 | WO |
| WO 2012031008 | Mar 2012 | WO |
| WO 2012068383 | May 2012 | WO |
| WO 2012135008 | Oct 2012 | WO |
| WO 13006495 | Jan 2013 | WO |
| WO 2013088457 | Jun 2013 | WO |
| WO 2013090620 | Jun 2013 | WO |
| WO 2013116742 | Aug 2013 | WO |
| WO 2014028884 | Feb 2014 | WO |
| WO 2014043803 | Mar 2014 | WO |
| WO 14085666 | May 2014 | WO |
| WO 14151764 | Sep 2014 | WO |
| WO 15073949 | May 2015 | WO |
| WO 2015071876 | May 2015 | WO |
| WO 16141127 | Sep 2016 | WO |
| WO 17062505 | Apr 2017 | WO |
| WO 20170059549 | Apr 2017 | WO |
| WO 2017062505 | Apr 2017 | WO |
| WO 2018165600 | Sep 2018 | WO |
| WO 19023517 | Jan 2019 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| US 5,962,233 A, 10/1999, Livak et al. (withdrawn) |
| Cuzick, J. et al. Lancet Oncology 12:245 (Feb. 2011). |
| Bibikova, M. et al. Genomics 89:666 (2007). |
| Penney, K.L. et al. Journal of Clinical Oncology 29:2391 (Jun. 2011). |
| Penney, K.L. et al. Appendix (9 pages) of Journal of Clinical Oncology 29:2391 (Jun. 2011). |
| Wang, Z. et al. Nature Reviews 10:57 (Jan. 2009). |
| Chen, J.L. et al. Clinical Cancer Research 18(16):4291 (Jun. 2012). |
| Kiessling, A. et al. The Prostate 64:387 (2005). |
| Zelefsky, M.J. et al. The Journal of Urology 166:876 (Sep. 2001). |
| Romanuik, T.L. et al. BMC Medical Genomics 3:43 (2010). |
| International Search Report regarding PCT/US2013055429, (dated Mar. 3, 2014). |
| Extended European Search Report dated Apr. 4, 2016, regarding EP 13 82 9137. |
| Abdueva et al., “Quantitative Expression Profiting in Formalin-Fixed ParaffinEmbedded Samples by Affymetrix Microarrays,” Journal of Molecular Diagnostics, vol. 12, No. 4, Jul. 2010, pp. 409-417. |
| Agell et al., “A 12-Gene Expression Signature Is Associated with Aggressive Histological in Prostate Cancer: SEC14L1 and TCEB1 Genes Are Potential Markers of Progression,” Am J Pathol, 2012, vol. 181 (5), pp. 1585-1594. |
| Aldred et al,, “Papillary and follicular thyroid carcinomas show distinctly different microarray expression profiles and can be distinguished by a minimum of five genes,” J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(17):3531-9. |
| Amundson et al., “Integrating global gene expression and radiation survival parameters across the 60 cell lines of the National Cancer Institute Anticancer Drug Screen,” Cancer Research, 2008, 68(2):415-424. |
| Ausubel, et al. Current Protocols in Molecular Biology. Wiley & Sons, New York, 1995, Table of Contents. |
| Baetke et al., “Molecular Pathways Involved in Prostate Carcinogenesis: Insights from Public Microarray Datasets,” PLoS ONE (2012), 7(11):e49831, 1-11. |
| Ballman et al,, “Faster cyclic loess: normalizing RNA arrays via linear models,” Bioinformatics, 2004, 20 :2778-2786. |
| Bannert et al., “Retroelements and the human genome: new perspectives on an old relation.” Proc Natl Acad Sci U SI\. Oct. 5, 2004; 101 Suppl 2:14572-9. |
| Barlow et al., “Analysis of Case-Cohort Designs,” J Clin Epidemiol, 1999, vol. 52 (12), 1165-1172. |
| Bauer et al., “Identification of Markers of Taxane Sensitivity Using Proteomic and Genomic Analyses of Breast Tumor from Patients Receiving Neoadjuvant Paclitaxel and Radiation,” Clin. Cancer Res. (2010), 16(2):681-690, American Association for Cancer Research. |
| Bergstralh et al., “Software for optimal matching in observation al studies,” Epidemiology, 1996, 7(3):331-332. |
| Best et al., “Molecular differentiation of high- and moderate-grade human prostate cancer by cDNA microarray analysis”, Diagn Mol Pathol., 2003, 12(2):63-70. |
| Bibikova et al., “Quantitative gene expression profiling in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues using universal bead arrays,” Am J Pathol., 2004, 165:1799-1807. |
| Bibikova et al., “Gene expression profiles in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues obtained with a novel assay for microarray analysis,” Clin Chem., 2004, 50:2384-2386. |
| Birney et al., “Identification and analysis of functional elements in 1% of the human genome by the ENCODE pilot project.” Nature. Jun. 14, 2007; 447(7146):799-816. |
| Boorjian et al., “Long-term risk of clinical progression after biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy: the mpact of time from surgery to recurrence.” Eur Urol. Jun. 2011; 59(6):893-9. |
| Boormans et al., “Identification of TDRD1 as a direct target gene of ERG in primary prostate cancer,” Int J Cancer, (2013) vol. 133 (2), pp. 335-345. |
| Bostwick et al., “Prognostic factors in prostate cancer: College of American Pathologists consensus statement,” Arch Pathol Lab Med, 2000, 124(7):995-1000. |
| Bott et al., “Prostate cancer management: (2) an update on locally advanced and metastatic disease”, Postgrad Med J, Dec. 3, 2003, 79(937), 643-645. |
| Breiman, “Random Forests,” Machine Learning, 2001, 45:5-32,. |
| Brouha et al., “Hot L1s account for the bulk of retrotransposition in the human population.” Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. Apr. 29, 2003; 100(9):5280-5. |
| Bull et al., “Identification of potential diagnostic markers of prostate cancer and prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia using cDNA microarrav,” British J Cancer, Jun. 1, 2001, 84(11):1512-1519. |
| Bussmakers et al., “DD3: a new prostate-specific gene, highly overexpressed in prostate cancer.” Cancer Res. Dec. 1, 1999; 59(23):5975-9. |
| Cerutti et al. “Diagnosis of suspicious thyroid nodules using four protein blomarkers,” Clin Cancer Res, 2006;12(11 Pt 1):3311-8. |
| Chalitchagorn et al., “Distinctive pattern of LINE-1 methylation level in normal tissues and the association with carcinogenesis.” Oncogene, Nov. 18, 2004; 23(54):8841-6. |
| Che et al,: “Prognostic Value of Abnormal p53 Expression in Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer Treated With Androgen Deprivation and Radiotherapy: A Study Based on RTOG 9202”; International Journal of Radiation: Oncology Biology Physics, rvol. 69, No. 4, Nov. 15, 2007, pp. 1117-1123. |
| Chen et al., “Significance of noninvasive diagnosis of prostate cancer with cytologic examination of prostatic fluid,” J Nippon Med Sch., 73(3):129-135, Jun. 2006. |
| Chen et al.: “Molecular determinants of resistance to antiandrogen therapy”; Nature Medicine, Nature Publishing Group, New York, NY, vol. 10, No. 1, Jan. 1, 2004, pp. 33-39. |
| Cheng et al. “Cell Proliferation in Prostate Cancer Patients with Lymph Node Metastasis”, Clin Cancer Res, Oct. 1999, 5(10): 2820-2823. |
| Cheville et at., “Gene Panel Model Predictive of Outcome in Men at High-Risk of Systemic Progression and Death From Prostate Cancer After Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy,”; Journal of Clinical Oncology vol. 26 , No, 24, Aug. 20, 2008. |
| Chifman et al., “Conservation of immune gene signatures in solid tumors and prognostic implications,” BMC Cancer (2016) 16:911, pp. 1-17. DOI 10.1186/S12885-016-2948-Z. |
| Chow et al., “LINE-1 activity in facultative heterochromatin formation during X chromosome inactivation.” Cell. Jun. 11, 2010; 141(6):956-69. |
| Cibas, et al. “The Bethesda System for Reporting Thyroid Cytopathology,” Am J Clin Pathol. Nov. 2009;132(5):658-65. doi: 10.1309/AJCPPHLWMI3JV4LA. |
| Clancy et al., “Profiling networks of distinct immune-cells in tumors,” BMC Bioinformatics (2016) 17:263, pp. 1-15. DOI 10.1186/s12859-016-1141-3. |
| Clark-Langone et al. “Riornarker discovery for colon cancer using a 761 gene RT-PCR assay 2007,” BMC Genomics 8:279 pp. 1-18 2007. |
| Cooperberg et al., “The CAPRA-S score: A straightforward tool for improved prediction of outcomes after radical prostatectomy,” Cancer (2011) vol. 117 (22), pp. 5039-5046. |
| Cordaux et al., “The impact of retrotransposons on human genome evolution.” Nat Rev Genet. Oct. 2009; 10 10):691-703. |
| Dalela et al., “Contemporary Role of the Decipher Test in Prostate Cancer Management: Current Practice and Future Perspectives,” Rev. Urol. (2016), 18(1):1-9, MedReviews®, LLC. |
| Dalsgaard Sorensen et al.: “Discovery of prostate cancer biomarkers by microarray gene expression profiling”; Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics, vol. 10, No. 1, Jan. 1, 2010, pp. 49-64. |
| D'Amico et al., “Cancer-specific mortality after surgery or radiation for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer managed during the prostate-specific antigen era,” J Clin Oncol., 2003, 21:2163-2172. |
| Dawood, Shaheenah, “Novel Biomarkers of Metastatic Cancer,” Expert Rev. Mo/. Diagn. (2010), 10(5):581-590, Expert Reviews Ltd. |
| Day et al., “Estimating enrichment of repetitive elements from high-throughput sequence data.” Genome Biol. 2010; 11 6):R69. |
| Demichelis et al., “TMPRSS2:ERG gene fusion associated with lethal prostate cancer in a watchful waiting cohort,” Oncogene, 2007, 26:4596-4599. |
| Dhanasekaran et al., “Delineation of prognostic biomarkers in prostate cancer,” Nature, 2001, 412: 822-826. |
| Dougherty, “The fundamental role of pattern recognition for gene-expression/microarray data in bioinformatics,” Pattern recognition. 2005; 38:2226-2228. |
| Eder et al., “Genes differentially expressed in prostate cancer,” BJU Int., May 2004, 93(8): 1151-1155. |
| Edwards et al.: “MicroRNAs and Ultraconserved Genes as Diagnostic Markers and Therapeutic Targets in Cancer and Cardiovascular Diseases”, Journal of Cardiovascular Translational Research, vol. 3, No. 3, May 5, 2010, pp. 271-279. |
| Englisch, et al., “Chemically Modified Oligonucleotides as Probes and Inhibitors,” Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Eng. 1991; 30:613-629. |
| Erho et al., “Discovery and Validation of a Prostate Cancer Genomic Classifier that Predicts Early Metastasis Following Radical Prostatectomy,” PLoS ONE (2013), 8(6):e66855, 1-12. |
| Ernst et al., “Decrease and gain of gene expression are equally discriminatory markers for prostate carcinoma: a gene expression analysis on total and microdissected prostate tissue,” Am J Pathol., Jun. 2002, 160(6):2169-2180. |
| Fan et al., “Concordance among gene-expression-based predictors for breast cancer,” N Engl J Med., 2006, 355;560-569. |
| Finley et al., “Advancing the molecular diagnosis of thyroid nodules: defining benign lesions by molecular profiling,” Thyroid (2005) 15(6):562-8. |
| Finley et al., “Discrimination of benign and malignant thyroid nodules by molecular profiling,” Ann Surg. (2004) 240(3):425-36; discussion 436-7. |
| Fodor et al., “Light-directed, spatially addressable parallel chemical synthesis,” Science, Feb. 15, 1991; 251(4995):767-73. |
| Foley et al., “Molecular pathology of prostate cancer: the key to identifying new blomarkers of disease,” Endocrine-Related Cancer, 2004, 11:477-488. |
| Fontaine, et al., “Increasing the number of thyroid lesions classes in microarray analysis improves the relevance of diagnostic markers,” PLoS One. Oct. 29, 2009; 4(10):e7632. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0007632. |
| Fujarewicz et al., “A multi-gene approach to differentiate papillary thyroid carcinoma from benign lesions: gene selection using support vector machines with bootstrapping,” Endocr Relat Cancer (Sep. 2007) 14(3):809-26. |
| Gait. Chapter 16: Oligoribonucleotides. Antisense Research and Applications, Crookeand Lebleu Eds., CRC Press (pp. 289-302) (1993). |
| Gao et al., “VISTA is an inhibitory immune checkpoint that is increased after ipilimumab therapy in patients with prostate cancer,” Nat Med. (May 2017) 23(5):551-555. |
| Gibb et al., “The functional role oflong non-coding RNA in human carcinomas”, Molecular Cancer, Biomed Central, London, GB, vol. 10, No. 1, Apr. 13, 2011, p. 38. |
| Glinsky et al., “Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of prostate cancer,” J Clin Investigation (2004) 113(6):913-923. |
| Glinsky et al., “Microarray analysis identifies a death-from-cancer signature predicting therapy i failure in patients with multiple types of cancer,” J Clin Invest. (2005) 115: 1503-1521. |
| Greenbaum et al.: “Comparing protein abundance and mRNA expression levels on a genomic scale”; Genome Biology, 2003, 4(9):117.1-117.8. |
| Griffith et al., “Meta-analysis and meta-review of thyroid cancer gene expression profiling studies identifies important diagnostic biomarkers,” J Clin Oncol. (2006) 24(31):5043-51. |
| Griffith, et al. Biomarker panel diagnosis of thyroid cancer: a critical review. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. Sep. 2008;8(9):1399-413. dol: 10.1586/14737140.8.9.1399. |
| Gupta et al., “Long non-coding RNA HOTAIR reprograms chromatin state to promote cancer metastasis,” Nature (Apr. 15, 2010) 464(7291): 1071-6. |
| Guttman et al., “Chromatin signature reveals over a thousand highly conserved large non-coding RNAs in mammals”, Nature Mar. 12, 2009; 458(7235):223-7. |
| Guttman et al., “Ab initio reconstruction of cell type-specific transcriptomes in mouse reveals the conserved multi- xonic structure of lincRNAs,” Nat Biotechnol. May 2010; 28(5):503-10. |
| Haiman et al.: “Multiple regions within 8q24 independently affect risk for prostate cancer”; Nat Genet., 2007, 39:638-644. |
| Hamada et al., “Diagnostic usefulness of PCR profiling of the differentially expressed marker genes in thyroid papillary carcinomas,” Cancer Lett. Jun. 28, 2005;224(2):289-301. Epub Nov. 18, 2004. |
| He et al., “The antisense transcriptomes of human cells”, Science Dec. 19, 2008; 322(5909): 1855-7. |
| Heemers, H. V. et al.: “Identification of a Clinically Relevant Androgen-Dependent Gene Signature in Prostate Cancer”; Cancer Research, vol. 71, No. 5, 2011, pp. 1978-1988. |
| Heidenreich et al., “EAU Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Clinically Localised Disease,” European Urology, (2011) vol. 59, pp. 61-71. |
| Henshall et al., “Survival Analysis of Genome-Wide Gene Expression Profiles of Prostate ancers Identifies New Prognostic Targets of Disease Relapse,” Cancer Research 63, 14196-4203, Jul. 15, 2003. |
| Holzbeierlein et al., “Gene expression analysis of human prostate carcinoma during hormonal therapy identifies androgen-responsive genes and mechanisms of therapy resistance,” Am. J . Pathol., Jan. 2004, 164(1):217-227. |
| Hornberger et al., “A Multigene Prognostic Assay for Selection of Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients with T3, Stage II Colon Cancer: Impact on Quality-Adjusted Life Expectancy and Costs,” Value in Health 15 (2012) pp. 1014-1021. |
| Huarte et al., “Large non-coding RNAs: missing links in cancer?” Human Molecular Genetics (Oct. 15, 2010) 19(2): R152-R161. |
| Hughes et al., “Molecular pathology of prostate cancer,” J Clin Pathol., Jul. 2005, 58(7):673-684. |
| Hughes et al., “Topoisomerase II—a expression increases with increasing Gleason score and with hormone insensitivity in prostate carcinoma,” J Clin Pathol,, 59(7): 721-724, Jul. 2006. |
| Jhavar et al., “Integration of ERG gene mapping and gene□expression profiling identifies distinct categories of human prostate cancer,” BJUI (2008) vol. 103 (9), pp. 1256-1269. |
| Kanehisa, “Use of statistical criteria for screening potential homologies in nucleic acid sequences,” Nucleic Acids Res. Jan. 11, 1984;12(1 Pt 1):203-13. |
| Kasraeian, et al. , “A comparison of fine-needle aspiration, core biopsy, and surgical biopsy in the diagnosis of extremity soft tissue masses,” Clin Orthop Relat Res. (Nov. 2010) 468(11):2992-3002. |
| Kebebew et al., “Diagnostic and extent of disease multigene assay for malignant thyroid neoplasms,” Cancer (2006) 106(12):2592-7. |
| Khor et al.: “Bcl-2 and Bax Expression Predict Prostate Cancer Outcome in Men Treated with Androgen Deprivation and Radiotherapy on Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Protocol 92-02”; Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 13, No. 12, Jun. 15, 2007, pp. 3585-3590. |
| Kikuchi et al., “Expression profiles of non-small cell lung cancers on cDNA microarrays: identification of genes for prediction of lymph-node metastasis and sensitivity to anti-cancer drugs,” Oncogene (2003) 22, pp. 2192-2205. |
| Kosari et al., “Identification of blomarkers for prostate cancer,” Clin. Cancer Res., 2008, 1734-1743. |
| Koshkin et al., “LNA (locked nucleic acids): An RNA mimic forming exceedingly stable LNA,” LNA duplexes. J Am Chem Soc 120:13252-13253 (1998). |
| Koshkin et al., “LNA (locked nucleic acids): synthesis of the adenine, cytosine, guanine 5-methylcytosine, thymine and uracil bicyclonucleoside monomers, oligomerisation, and unprecedented nucleic acid recognition,” Tetrahedron (1998) 54(14):3607-3630. |
| Kroschwitz the Concise Encyclopedia of Polymer Science and Engineering. (pp. 858-859) (1990). |
| Kube et al., “Optimization of laser capture microdissection and RNA amplification for gene expression profiling of prostate cancer”, BMC Mol. Biol., 2007, 8:25. |
| Kumar, et al., “The first analogues of LNA (locked nucleic acids): phosphorothioate-LNA and 2′-thio-LNA,” Bioorg Med Chem Lett. (Aug. 18, 1998) 8(16):2219-22. |
| Landers et al,: “Use of multiple biomarkers for a molecular diagnosis of prostate cancer”; Int. J. Cancer, 114, May 10, 2005, pp. 950-956. |
| Lapointe et al., “Gene expression profiling identifies clinically relevant subtypes of prostate cancer,” Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2004, 101:811-816. |
| Latulippe et al., “Comprehensive Gene Expression Analysis of Prostate Cancer Reveals Distinct Transcriptional Programs Associated with Metastatic Disease,” Cancer Res., 2002, 62:4499-4506. |
| Lin et al., “Nuclear receptor-induced chromosomal proximity and DNA breaks underlie specific translocations in cancer”, Cell. Dec. 11, 2009; 139(6):1069-83. |
| Lockstone, “Exon array data analysis using Affymetrix power tools and R statistical software,” Briefings in bioinformatics (2011) vol. 12 (6), pp. 634-644. |
| Magee et al., “Expression Profiling Reveals Hepsin Overexpression in Prostate Cancer,” Cancer Res., 2001, 61:5692-5696. |
| Martens-Uzunova, E. S. et al.: “Diagnostic and prognostic signatures from the small non-codin RNA transcriptome in prostate cancer”, Oncogene, vol. 31, No. 8, Jul. 18, 2011, pp. 978-991. |
| Martin, “A New Access to 2′-O-Alkylated Ribonucleosides and Properties of 2′-O-Alkylated Oligoribonucleotides,” Helv. Chin Acta. (1995) 78:486-504. (in German with English abstract). |
| Mazzanti, et al., “Using gene expression profiling to differentiate benign versus malignant thyroid tumors,” Cancer Res, Apr. 15, 2004; 64(8):2898-903. |
| McCall et al., “Frozen robust multiarray analysis (fRMA)”, Biostatistics, 2010, vol. 11 (2), 242-253. |
| Mineva et al., “Differential expression of alphaB-crystallin and Hsp27-1 in anaplastic thyroid carcinomas because of tumor-specific alphaB-crystallin gene (CRYAB) silencing,” Cell Stress Chaperones (2005) Autumn;10(3):171-84. |
| Nakagawa et al., “A Tissue Blomarker Panel Predicting Systemic Progression after PSA Recurrence Post-Definitive Prostate Cancer. Therapy,” PLos ONE, 2008, 3(5):e2318, 14 pages. |
| Newson, Roger, “Confidence intervals for rank statistics: Somers' D and extensions”, Stata Journal, 6(3):309-334; Sep. 2006. |
| Nielsen et al., “Sequence-selective recognition of DNA by strand displacement with a thymine-substituted polyamide,” (1991) Science. 254: 1497-1500. |
| Noordzij et al. “The prognostic value of CD44 isoforms in prostate cancer patients treated by radical prostatectomy”, Clin Cancer Res, May 1997, 3(5): 805-815. |
| Norman, James, “Thyroid Nodule Ultrasound”, Endocrine website, Updated Oct. 13, 2010, http://www.endocrineweb.com/noduleus.html. |
| Parker et al., “High expression levels of surviving protein independently predict a poor outcome for patients who undergo surgery for clear cell renal cell carcinoma,” Cancer, 2006, 107:37-45. |
| Pascal et al., “Correlation of mRNA and protein levels: Cell type-specific gene expression of cluster designation antigens in the prostate,” BMC Genomics, 2008, 9:246 (13 pages). |
| Patel et al., “Preoperative PSA velocity is an independent prognostic factor for relapse after radical prostatectomy,” J Clin Oncol., 2005, 23:6157-6162. |
| Pereira et al, “Coagulation factor V and VIIIN ratio as predictors of outcome in paracetamol induced fulminant hepatic failure: relation to other prognostic indicators,” Gut, 1992, 33 :98-102. |
| Pienta et al. “The current state of preclinical prostate cancer animal models”; Prostate (2008) 69: 629-639. |
| Pilepich et al., “Phase III radiation therapy oncology group (RTOG) trial 86-10 of androgen deprivation adjuvant to definitive radiotherapy in locally advanced carcinoma of the prostate,” Int. J. Radiation Oncology Biol. Phys. (2001) vol. 50, No. 5, pp. 1243-1252. |
| Pinover et al., “Validation of a treatment policy for patients with prostate specific antigen failure after three-dimensional conformal prostate radiation therapy,” Cancer (Feb. 15, 2003) vol. 97, No. 4, pp. 1127-1133. |
| Pittoni et al., “The Dark Side of Mast Cell-Targeted Therapy in Prostate Cancer,” Cancer Res. (2012) 72(4):831-835. |
| Porkka et al: Molecular mechanisms of prostate cancer; Eur Urol., 2004, 45(6):683-691. |
| Pound et al., “Natural history of progression after PSA elevation following radical prostatectomy,” JAMA, 1999, 281:1591-1597. |
| Prasad et al., “Identification of genes differentially expressed in benign versus malignant thyroid tumors,” Clin Cancer Res. (2008) 14(11):3327-37. |
| Prensner et al., “Transcriptome Sequencing Identifies PCAT-1, a Novel lincRNA Implicated in Prostate Cancer Progression,” (2012) 29 (8): 742-749. |
| Puskas, et al., “Gene profiling identifies genes specific for well-differentiated epithelial thyroid tumors,” Cell Mol Biol (Noisy-le-grand) (Sep. 5, 2005) 51(2):177-86. |
| Reis et al., “Antisense intronic non-coding RNA levels correlate to the degree of tumor differentiation in prostate cancer,” Oncogene (2004) 23(39):6684-6692. |
| Rhodes et al., “Multiplex biomarker approach for determining risk of prostatespecific antigen-defined recurrence of prostate cancer,” J Nat Cancer Inst. (May 7, 2003) vol. 95, No. 9, pp. 661-668. |
| Rhodes et al., “Large-scale meta-analysis of cancer microarray data identifies common transcriptional profiles of neoplastic transformation and progression,” Proc Nat Acad Sci USA (2004) 101:9309-9314. |
| Rhodes et al., “ONCOMINE: A Cancer Microarray Database and Integrated Data-Mining Platform,” Neoplasia (2004) 6:1-6. |
| Rinn et al., “Functional demarcation of active and silent chromatin domains in human HOX loci by noncoding RNAs,” Cell (Jun. 29, 2007) 129(7):1311-23. |
| Robertson et al., “DNA in radical prostatectomy specimens. Prognostic value of tumor ploidy,” Acta Oncologica (1991) 30(2):205-207. |
| Robinson, et al., “A comparison of Affymetrix gene expression arrays,” BMC Bioinformatios, Nov. 15, 2007;8:449. |
| Robinson et al., “A dynamic programming approach for the alignment of signal peaks in multiple gas chromatography-mass spectrometry experiments,” BMC Bioinformatics (2007) 8.1:419. |
| Rotblat et al., “A Possible Role for Long Non-Coding RNA in Modulating Signaling Pathways,” Med, Hvnotheses (2011), 77:962-965, Elsevier. |
| Rubin et al., “Molecular genetics of human prostate cancer,” Modern Pathol. (2004) 17(3):380-388. |
| Sanghvi, “Heterocyclic base modifications in nucleic acids and their applications in antisense oligonucleotides in Antisense Research and Applications,” Crooke, S. T. and Lebleu, B., ed., CRC Press. 1993; Ch 15 274-285. |
| Saramaki et al., “Amplification of EIF3S3 gene is associated with advanced stage in prostate cancer,” Am J Pathol. (2001) 159:2089-2094. |
| Sato et al., “Clinical significance of alterations of chromosome 8 in high-grade, advanced, nonmetastatic prostate carcinoma,” J Natl Cancer Inst., 1999, 91:1574-1580. |
| Savinainen et al., “Expression and copy No. analysis of TRPS 1, EIF3S3 and MYC genes in breast and prostate cancer,” Br J Cancer, 2004, 90: 1041-1046. |
| Schumacher et al., “A Common 8q24 Variant in Prostate and Breast Cancer from a Large Nested Case-Control Study,” Cancer Res. (2007) 67:2951-2956. |
| Severi et al., “The Common Variant rs1447295 on Chromosome 8q24 and Prostate Cancer Risk: Results from an Australian Population-based Case-Control Study”, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention (2007) 16:610-611. |
| Shariat et al., “Survivin expression is associated with features of biologically aggressive prostate carcinoma,” Cancer, 2004, 100(4): 751-757. |
| Shariat et al., “An updated catalog of prostate cancer predictive tools,” Cancer 2008, 113(11):3062-6. |
| Shen et al., “The SWI/SNF ATPase Brm is a gatekeeper of proliferative control in prostate cancer.” Cancer Res. (Dec. 15, 2008) 68(24):10154-62. |
| Shibru et al., “Does the 3-gene diagnostic assay accurately distinguish benign from malignant thyroid neoplasms?” Cancer (Sep. 1, 2008) 113(5):930-5. doi: 10.1002/cncr.23703. |
| Shipley et al., “Radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer: a multi-institutional pooled analysis,” JAMA 1999, 281:1598-1604. |
| Simmons et al., “Natural history of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy: risk assessment for secondary herapy,” Eur Urol. (May 2007) 51(5):1175-84. |
| Singh et al., “LNA (locked nucleic acids): synthesis and high-affinity nucleic acid recognition,” Chem Commun (1998) 4;455-456. |
| Singh et al., “Synthesis of 2′-amino-LNA: A novel conformationally restricted high-affinity oligonucleotide analogues with a handle,” J Bio Chem (1998) 63:10035-10039. |
| Singh et al., “Gene expression correlates of clinical prostate cancer behavior,” Cancer Cell (Mar. 2002) vol. 1, pp. 1203-1209. |
| Srikantan et al., “PCGEM1, a prostate-specific gene, is overexpressed in prostate cancer,” PNAS (Oct. 24, 2000) 97(22): 12216-12221. |
| Taft et al., “Non-coding RNAs: regulators of disease,” J Pathol, Jan. 2010, 220(2):126-39. |
| Taylor et al., “Integrative genomic profiling of human prostate cancer”, Cancer Cell, Jul. 13, 2010, vol. 18 (1), pp. 11-22. |
| Thompson et al., “Adjuvant and Salvage Radiotherapy After Prostatectomy; AUA/ASTRO Guideline,” J Urol., 2013 190(2):441-9. |
| Thorsen et al., “Alternative Splicing in Colon, Bladder, and Prostate Cancer Identified by Exon Array Analysis,” Molecular & Cellular Proteomics (Mar. 18, 2008) vol. 7, No. 7, pp. 1214-1224. |
| Tockman et al., “Considerations in bringing a cancer biomarker to clinical application”, Cancer Research, 1992, 52:2711-2718. |
| Tricoli et al., “Detection of prostate cancer and predicting progression: current and future diagnostic markers,” Clinical Cancer Research (Jun. 15, 2004) 10:3943-3953. |
| True et al., “A molecular correlate to the Gleason grading system for prostate ladenocarcinoma,” Proc Nati Acad Sci U S A. Jul. 18, 2006;103(29): 10991-6. Epub Jul. 7, 2006 preceding development of malignancy, J Clin Oncol. (Jul. 15, 2004) 22(14):2790-9. |
| Tsuchiya et al., “Mapping and gene expression profile of the minimally overrepresented 8q24 region in prostate cancer”, Am J Pathol. (May 2002) 160(5):1799-1806. |
| Varambally et al., “Integrative Genomic and Proteomic Analysis of Prostate Cancer Reveals Signatures of Metastatic Progression,” Cancer Cell (Nov. 2005) 8(5):393-406. |
| Varela et al., “Exome sequencing identifies frequent mutation of the SWI/SNF complex gene PBRM1 in renal carcinoma,” Nature (Jan. 27, 2011) 469(7331):539-42. |
| Varricchi et al., “Are Mast Cells MASTers in Cancer?” Front Imrnunol. ePub (Apr. 12, 2017) 8:424. |
| Vickers et al., “Extensions to decision curve analysis, a novel method for evaluating diagnostic tests, prediction models and molecular markers,” BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, (2008) 8(53)1-17. |
| Wang et al., “Two common chromosome 8q24 variants are associated with increased risk for prostate cancer,” Cancer Res. (2007) 67:2944-2950. |
| Watson et al., “Future opportunities for the diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer,” Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. (2004) 7:S8-S13. |
| Weber et al., “The prognostic value of expression of HIF1 [alpha], EGFR and VEGF-A, in localized prostate cancer for intermediate- and high-risk patients treated with radiation therapy with or without androgen deprivation therapy”; Radiation Oncology (Apr. 30, 2012) vol. 7, No. 66, 8 pages. |
| Welsh et al., “Analysis of Gene Expression Identifies Candidate Markers and Pharmacological Targets in Prostate Cancer,” Cancer Res. (Aug. 15, 2001) 61:5974-5978. |
| Wiegand et al., “ARID1A mutations in endometriosis-associated ovarian carcinomas”, N Engl J Med. (Oct. 14, 2010) 363 (16):1532-43. |
| Yap et al., “Molecular interplay of the noncoding RNA ANRIL and methylated histone H3 lysine 27 by polycomb CBX7 n transcriptional silencing of INK4a”, Mol Cell, (Jun. 11, 2010) 38(5):662-74. |
| Yates et al,, “X:Map: annotation and visualization of genome structure for Affymetrix exon array analysis,” Nucleic Acids Res., (2008) vol. 36:D780-D786. |
| Yegnasubramanian et al., “DNA hypomethylation arises later in prostate cancer progression than CpG island hypermethylation and contributes to metastatic tumor heterogeneity”, Cancer Res. Nov. 1, 2008; 68(21): pp. 8954-8967. |
| Yu et al., “Gene expression alterations in prostate cancer predicting tumor aggression and preceding development of malignancy,” J Clin Oncol., (Jul. 15, 2004) 22(14):2790-2799. |
| Yu et al., “An integrated network of androgen receptor, polycomb, and TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusions in prostate cancer progression,” Cancer Cell. (May 18, 2010) 17(5):443-54. |
| Yukinawa et al., “A multi-class predictor based on a probabilistic model: application to gene expression profiling-based diagnosis of thyroid tumors,” BMC Genomics (Jul. 27, 2006) 7:190. |
| Zhao et al., “Development and validation of a 24-gene predictor of response to postoperative radiotherapy in prostate cancer: a matched, retrospective analysis,” Lancet Oncol (2016) 17, pp. 1612-1620. |
| GenBank Accession No. AA462934 dated Jun. 10, 1997, 2 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. AB028840 dated Jan. 12, 2000, 2 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. AB030836 dated Oct. 2, 1999, 2 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. AB036741 dated Dec. 22, 2000, 3 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. AF077349 dated Dec. 14, 2000, 2 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. AF077351 dated Dec. 20, 2000, 3 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. AF115517 dated Nov. 23, 2005, 4 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. AI413910 dated Feb. 9, 1999, 2 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. AI414999 dated Feb. 9, 1999, 2 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. A1425960 dated Mar. 9, 1999, 2 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. A1851940 dated Jul. 15, 1999, 2 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. AK018022 dated Sep. 19, 2008, 4 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. AK019341 dated Sep. 19, 2008, 3 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. AK019342 dated Sep. 19, 2008, 3 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. AK142768 dated Sep. 19, 2008, 3 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. AL591433 dated Jan. 15, 2009, 56 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. BC004702 dated Jul. 15, 2006, 3 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. BC055737 dated Jul. 15, 2006, 2 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. BC086799 dated Sep. 21, 2006, 3 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. BF449664 dated Dec. 1, 2000, 1 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. BG063957 dated Jan. 26, 2001, 2 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. 3G077309 dated Dec. 17, 2003, 2 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. BM114282 dated Jan. 30, 2002, 2 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. BY023910 dated Dec. 6, 2002, 2 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. CN724527 dated May 18, 2004, 2 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. NM_000130 dated Oct. 18, 2009, 6 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. NM_000493 dated Mar. 15, 2009, 4 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. NM_000598, GI No. 62243067, dated Jun. 6, 2010, 5 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. NM_000688, GI No. 40316942, dated Nov. 4, 2010, 5 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. NM_001013398; GI No. 62243247, dated Jun. 6, 2010, 5 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. NM_001034 dated Oct. 5, 2009, 5 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. NM_001039573, GI No. 221316683, dated Mar. 4, 2010, 5 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. NM_001049 dated Jun. 21, 2009, 4 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. NM_001067 dated Oct. 18, 2009, 5 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. NM_001098533, GI No. 237858579, dated May 7, 2010, 5 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. NM_001130851; GI No. 195927024, dated Mar. 5, 2010, 4 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. NM_001136154 dated Jan. 8, 2012, 6 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. NM_001136155 dated Jan. 8, 2012, 6 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. NM_001143998, GI No. 221316675, dated Mar. 4, 2010, 5 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. NM_001143999, GI No. 221316679, dated Mar. 5, 2010, 5 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. NM_001144001, GI No. 221316686, dated Mar. 4, 2010, 5 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No, NM_001160367, GI No. 237858581, dated May 7, 2010, 5 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. NM_001786 dated Nov. 1, 2009, 4 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. NM_001844 dated Sep. 28, 2009, 7 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. NM_003003, GI No. 221316681, dated Mar. 4, 2010, 5 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. NM_003014; GI No. 170784837, dated Mar. 13, 2010, 5 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. NM_003184; GI No. 115527086, dated Mar. 4, 2010, 7 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. NM_003873.3 dated Oct. 18, 2009, 4 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. NM_004336; GI No. 211938448, dated Mar. 14, 2010, 6 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. NM_004449 dated Jan. 8, 2012, 6 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. NM_005025.2 dated Jul. 12, 2009, 4 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. NM_005192, GI No. 195927023, dated Mar. 4, 2010, 4 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. NM_005651.1 dated Oct. 27, 2009, 3 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. NM_006265, GI No. 208879448, dated Apr. 11, 2010, 6 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. NM_006558 dated Aug. 21, 2009, 3 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. NM_006727 dated Oct. 18, 2009, 3 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. NM_006819; GI No. 110225356, dated May 17, 2010, 5 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. NM_012152; GI No. 183396778, dated Apr. 5, 2010, 5 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. NM_014846; GI No. 120952850, dated Mar. 4, 2010, 6 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. NM_016623; GI No. 42734437, dated Mar. 29, 2009, 4 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. NM_018930 dated Feb. 10, 2008, 4 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. NM_031966 GI No. 34304372, dated Jun. 6, 2010, 5 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. NM_032334; GI No. 223468686, dated Mar. 5, 2010, 3 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. NM_052987, GI No. 237858574, dated May 17, 2010, 5 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. NM_052988, GI No. 237858573, dated May 17, 2010, 5 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. NM_080546; GI No. 112363101, dated May 17, 2010, 6 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. NM_080607 dated Sep. 3, 2009, 2 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. NM_133445 dated Sep. 20, 2009, 5 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. NM_138455; GI No. 34147546, dated May 7, 2010, 3 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. NM_182918 dated Jan. 8, 2012, 6 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. NM_199166, GI No. 40316938, dated Apr. 11, 2010, 5 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. NP_001058 dated Dec. 25, 2011, 9 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. W34764 dated May 13, 1996, 2 pages. |
| Supplemental Table 1 of U.S. Appl. No. 61/057,698, filed May 30, 2008, 13 pages. |
| Supplemental Table 2 of U.S. Appl. No. 61/057,698, filed May 30, 2008, 15 pages. |
| Supplemental Table 3 of U.S. Appl. No. 61/057,698, filed May 30, 2008, 21 pages. |
| Supplemental Table 4 of U.S. Appl. No. 61/057,698, filed May 30, 12008, 1 page. |
| Supplemental Table 5 of U.S. Appl. No. 61/057,698, filed May 30, 12008, 2 pages. |
| Supplemental Table 6 of U.S. Appl. No. 61/057,698, filed May 30, 2008, 1 page. |
| Affymetrix: Data Sheet, “GeneChip® Exon Array System for Human, Mouse, and Rat,” Internet Citation, [Online] Jan. 25, 2012 [Retrieved from the Internet] Intp://www.biainformatics.atickland.aciaz/workshops/1O_March_2011 1 Exon_EOST_Datash eet.pdf, 8 pages. |
| Bibikova et al., “Expression signatures that correlated with Gleason score and relapse in prostate cancer,” Genomics (2007) 89(6):666-672. |
| Chen et al., “Hepsin and maspin are inversely expressed in laser capture microdissectioned prostate cancer,” J Urol. (Apr. 2003) 169(4):1316-1319. |
| Dahlman et al., “Effect of androgen deprivation therapy on the expression of prostate cancer biomarkets MSMB and MSMB-binding protein CRISP3,” Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases (2010) 13:369-375. |
| Dechassa et al., “Architecture of the SWI/SNF-nucleosome complex,” Mol Cell Biol. (Oct. 2008) vol. 28, No. 19, pp. 6010-6021. |
| Edwards et al., “Expression analysis onto microarrays of randomly selected cDNA clones highlights HOXB13 as a marker of human prostate cancer,” Br J Cancer. (Jan. 31, 2005) 92(2):376-381. |
| Etzioni et al. “The case for early detection”, Nature Reviews | Cancer (Apr. 2003) vol. 3, pp. 1-10. |
| Fryknas et al., “Molecular markers for discrimination of benign and malignant follicular thyroid tumors,” Tumour Biol. (May 2, 2006) 27(4):211-20. |
| Galamb et al., “Diagnostic mRNA Expression Patterns of Inflamed, Benign, and Malignant Colorectal Biopsy Specimen and their Correlation with Peripheral Blood Results,” Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention (Oct. 2008) 17(10):2835-2845. |
| Giordano et al., “Organ-Specific Molecular Classification of Primary Lung, Colon, and Ovarian Adenocarcinomas Using Gene Expression Profiles,” Am J Pathol (2001) 159(4):1231-1238. |
| Ida et al., “Topoisomerase II alpha protein expression Is predictive of outcome in Gleason score 7 prostate cancer patients treated surgically and is dependent on ERG status.” Mod Pathol. (Feb. 2010) Abstract 1895, 23 : 424A-425A. |
| Jenkins et al., “Prognostic significance of ailetic imbalance of chromosome arms 71, 8p, 16q, and 18q in stage T3NOMO prostate cancer,” Genes, Chromosomes & Cancer (1998) 21:131-143. |
| Karayi et al., “Molecular biology of prostate cancer,” Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. (2004) 7(1):6-20. |
| Karnes et al., “Radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer,” Jpn. J. Clin. Oneal. (Oct. 19, 2009) 40 (1): 3-9, Epub. |
| Karnes et al., “The ability of biomarkers to predict systemic progression in men with high-risk prostate cancer treated surgically is dependent on ERG status,” Cancer Res. (Nov. 9, 2010) 70(22):8994-9002, Epub. |
| Kawamorita et al., “Radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer: Biochemical outcome,” International Journal of Urology (2009) 16:733-738. |
| Kishi et al., “Expression of the survivin gene in prostate cancer: correlation with clinicopathological characteristics, proliferative activity and apoptosis,” J Urol. (May 2004) 171(5): 1855-1860. |
| Klee et al., “Candidate Serum Biomarkers for Prostate Adenocarcinoma identified by mRNA Differences in Prostate Tissue and Verified with Protein Measurements in Tissue and Blood,” Clinical Chemistry (2012) 58(3):599-609. |
| Kumar-Sinha et al., “Molecular markers to identify patients at risk for recurrence after primary treatment for prostate cancer,” Urology, 62 Suppl 1:19-35, Dec. 29, 2003. |
| Liong et al., “Blood-Based Biomarkers of Aggressive Prostate Cancer,” PLoS ONE (Sep. 2012) vol. 7, Issue 7, e45802, pp. 1-7. |
| Lunardi et al., “A co-clinical approach identified mechanisms and potential therapies for androgen deprivation resistance in prostate cancer,” Nature Genetics (Jul. 2013) vol. 45, No. 7, pp. 747-757. |
| Luo et al., “Human Prostate Cancer and Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia : Molecular Dissection by Gene Expression Profiling,” Cancer Res. (2001) 61:4683-4688. |
| Mühlenbruch et al., “Multiple imputation was a valid approach to estimate absolute risk from a prediction model based on case—cohort data,” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (2017) 84:130-141. |
| Ong et al., “Expression Profiling Identifies a Novel-Methylacyl-CoA Racemase Exon with Fumarate Hydratase Homology,” Cancer Research (Jun. 15, 2003) 63:3296-3301. |
| Perez et al., “Long, abundantly expressed non-coding transcripts are altered in cancer,” Human Molecular Genetics (2008) vol. 17, No. 5, pp. 642-655. Advanced Access published on Nov. 15, 2007. |
| Rotunno et al., “A Gene Expression Signature from Peripheral Whole Blood for Stage I Lung Adenocarcinoma,” Cancer Prevention Research (Jul. 8, 2011) 4(10) 1599-1607. |
| Stanbrough et al., “Increased Expression of Genes Converting Adrenal Androgens to Testosterone in Androgen-Independent Prostate Cancer,” Cancer Res (Mar. 1, 2006) 66(5):2815-2825. |
| Stephenson et al., “Integration of gene expression profiling and clinical variables to predict prostate carcinoma recurrence after radical prostatectomy,” Cancer (Jul. 15, 2005) 104(2):290-298. |
| Subramanian et al., “Gene set enrichment analysis: a knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles,” PNAS USA (2005) 102:15545-15550. |
| Takayama et al., “TACC2 Is an Androgen-Responsive Cell Cycle Regulator Promoting Androgen-Mediatged and Castration-Resistant Growth of Prostate Cancer,” Mol Endocrinol (May 2012) 26(5):748-761. |
| Tomlins et al., “TMPRSS2:ETV4 Gene Fusions Define a Third Molecular Subtype of Prostate Cancer,” Cancer Res. (2006) 66:3396-3400. |
| Tomlins et al., “Distinct classes of chromosomal rearrangements create oncogenic ETS gene fusions in prostate cancer,” Nature (Aug. 2, 2007) 448(7153):595-9. |
| Vanaja et al., “Transcriptional Silencing of Zinc Finger Protein 185 Identified Profiling Is Associated with Prostate Cancer Progression,” Cancer Research (Jul. 15, 2003) 63:3877-3882. |
| Vanaja et al., “PDLIM4 Represseion by Hypermethylation as a Potential Biomarker for Prostate Cancer,” Clin. Cancer Res. (2006) 12(4):1128-1136. |
| GenBank Accession No. AK034387 dated Sep. 19, 2008, 4 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. AK038229 dated Sep. 19, 2008, 4 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. AK038434 dated Sep. 19, 2008, 4 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. AK041534 dated Sep. 19, 2008, 4 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. AK042683 dated Sep. 19, 2008, 4 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. AK136096 dated Sep. 19, 2008, 4 pages. |
| GenBank Accession No. AK136101 dated Sep. 19, 2008, 4 pages. |
| Cho et al., “Hypermethylation of CpG island loci and hypomethylation of LINE-1 and Alu repeats in prostate denocarcinoma and their relationship to clinicopathological features”, J Pathol (Feb. 2007) 211(3):269-77. |
| Gleave et al., “Randomized comparative study of 3 versus 8-month neoadjuvant hormonal therapy before radical orostatectomy : biochemical and pathological effects,” J Urol. (2001) 166:500-507. |
| Henrotin et al.: “Type II collagen peptides for measuring cartilage degradation,” Biotheology (2004) 41 (3-4): Abstract. |
| Lawton et al., “Updated results of the phase III Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) trial 85-31 evaluating the potential benefit of androgen suppression following standard radiation therapy for unfavorable prognosis carcinoma of the prostate,” Int J Rad Oncol Biol Phvs. (2001) 49:937-946. |
| Porkka et al., “RAD21 and KIAA0196 at 8q24 are amplified and overexpressed in prostate cancer,” Genes Chromosomes Cancer (2004) 39:1-10. |
| Rowley, “A new Consistent Chromosomal Abnormal ity in Chronic Myelogenous Leukaemia Identified by Quinacrine rluorescence and Giemsa Staining,” Nature (Jun. 1, 1973) 243:290-293. |
| Sandler et al., “Overall survival after prostate-specific-antigen-detected recurrence following conformal radiation therapy,” Int J Rad Oncol Biol Phvs. (2000) 48:629-633. |
| Sun et al., “Aberrant expression of SWI/SNF catalytic subunits BRG1/BRM is associated with tumor development and ncreased invasiveness in prostate cancers,” Prostate (Feb. 1, 2007) 67(2):203-13. |
| Zelefsky et al., “Neoadjuvant hormonal therapy improves the therapeutic ratio in patients with bulky prostatic cancer treated with three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy,” Int J Radiat Oncol Biot Phvs. (1994) 29:755-761. |
| Adamo and Ladomery, “The Oncogene ERG: A Key Factor in Prostate Cancer,” Oncogene(2016), 35:403-414. |
| Affymetrix GeneChip Human Genome U133 Array Set HG-U133A, Geo, Mar. 11, 2002, retrieved on Mar. 11, 2002. |
| Alberts et al., “Vesicular traffic in the secretory and endocytic pathways,” Molecular Biology of the Cell (1994) 3rd Ed., p. 465. |
| Amling et al.: “Long-term hazard of progression after radical prostatectomy for clinically EB localized prostate cancer continued risk of biochemical failure after 5 years,” J Urol. (2000) 164:101-105. |
| Amundadottir et al., “A common variant associated with prostate cancer in European and African populations,” Nat Genet. (2006) 38:652-658. |
| Anonymous, UCSC Genome Browser on Human Mar. 2006, NCBI36/hg18) Assembly, Mar. 2006, XP055587638, Retrieved from the Internet: URL:https://genome-euro.ucsc.edu/cgi-bin/hgTracks?db=hg18&lastVirtModeType=default&lastVirtModeExtraState=& virtModeType=default&virtMode=0&nonVirtPosition=&position=chr5%3A 14025126%2D14062770&hgsid=232148223_IYIy9VS0Lh0jhldEBQ3nViBrQuB5 [retrieved on May 10, 2019]. |
| Baggerly et al., “Deriving Chemosensitivity from Cell Lines: Forensic Bioinformatics and Reproducible Research in High-Throughput Biology,” The Annals of Applied Sciences (2009) vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 1309-1334. |
| Benner et al., “Evolution, language and analogy in functional genomics,” TRENDS in Genetics, (Jul. 2001) vol. 17, pp. 414-418. |
| Bismar et al., “ERG Protein Expression Reflects Hormonal Treatment Response and is Associated with Gleason Score and Prostate Cancer Specific Mortality,” Eur. J. Cancer (2012), 48:538-546,Elsevier Ltd. |
| Biton et al., Nov. 20, 2014, Independent component analysis uncovers the landscape of the bladder tumor transcriptome and reveals insights into luminal and basal subtypes, Cell Reports, 9(4):1235-1245. |
| Blute et al., “Use of Gleason score, prostate specific antigen, seminal vesicle and margin status to predict biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy,” J Urol (2001) 165: 119-125. |
| Erase et al., “TMPRSS2-ERG-specific transcriptional modulation is associated with prostate cancer biomarkers and TGF-β signaling,” BMC Cancer (2011) 11(507):1-8. |
| Bueno et al., “A diagnostic test for prostate cancer from gene expression profiling data,” J Urol, Feb. 2004; 171(2 Pt 1):903-6. |
| Carninci et al., “The transcriptional landscape of the mammalian genome,” Science (Sep. 2, 2005) 09(5740):1559-63. |
| Cheung et al., “Natural variation in human gene expression assessed in lymphoblastoid cells,” Nature Genetics (2003) vol. 33, pp. 422-425. |
| Cho et al., “Hypermethylation of CpG island loci and hypomethylation of LINE-1 and Alu repeats in prostate adenocarcinoma and their relationship to clinicopathological features”, J Pathol (Feb. 2007) 211(3):269-77. |
| Choi et al., Feb. 2014, Identification of distinct basal and luminal subtypes of muscle-invasive bladder cancer with different sensitivities to frontline chemotherapy, Cancer Cell, 25(2):152-165. |
| Cologne et al., “Optimal Case-Control Matching in Practice,” Epidemiology Resources Inc. (1995) 6(3):271-275. |
| Cooper et al., “Mechanisms of Disease: biomarkers and molecular targets from microarray gene expression studies in prostate cancer ,” Nat Clin Pract Urol. (2007) Dee:4(12):677-87. |
| Cordon-Cardo et al., “Improved prediction of prostate cancer recurrence through systems pathology,” the Journal of Clinical Investigation (Jul. 2007) vol. 117, No. 7, pp. 1876-1883. |
| Couzin-Frankel, Jennifer, “As Questions Grow, Duke Halts Trials, Launches Investigation,” Science (Aug. 6, 2010) vol. 329, pp. 614-615. |
| D'Amico et al., “Determinants of prostate cancer-specific survival after radiation therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer,” J Clin Oncol. (2002) 20:4567-4573. |
| De Klein et al., “A cellular oncogene is translocated to the Philadelphia chromosome in chronic myelocytic leukaemia.” Nature (Dec. 23, 1982) 300(5894):765-7. |
| De Marzo et al., “Pathological and molecular mechanisms of prostate carcinogenesis: implications for diagnosis, detection, prevention, and treatment,” J Cell Biochem. (Feb. 15, 2004) 91(3):459-477. |
| Den et al., Mar. 10, 2015, Genomic classifier identifies men with adverse pathology after racial prostatectomy who benefit from adjuvant radiation therapy, Journal of Clinical Oncology, 33(8):944-951. |
| Epstein et al., “Prognostic factors and reporting of prostate carcinoma in radical AU prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy specimens,” Scand. J. Urol. Nephrol. Suppl. (2005) 216:34-63. |
| Feng et al., “Luminal and basal subtyping of prostate cancer,” J Clin Oncol (Feb. 20, 2017) vol. 35, No. 6, p. 3, Abstract. |
| Feroze-Merzoug et al., “Molecular profiling in prostate cancer,” Cancer Metastasis Rev. 1 (2001) 20(3-4):165-71. |
| Fine et al., “A Proportional Hazards Model for the Subdistribution of a Competing Risk,” Journal of the American Statistical Association (1999) vol. 94 (446), pp. 496-509. |
| Fu et al., “Regulation of apoptosis by a prostate-specific and prostate cancer-associated noncoding gene, PCGEM1.” DNA Cell Biol. (Mar. 2006) 25(3): 135-41. |
| Galavotti et al., Apr. 2012, the autophagy-associated factors DRAM1 and p62 regulate cell migration and invasion in glioblastoma stem cells, Oncogene, 32:699-712. |
| Garber et al., “Diversity of gene expression in adenocarcinoma of the lung,” PNAS (Nov. 20, 2001) vol. 98, No. 24, pp. 13784-13789. |
| Gleason: “Histologic grading and clinical staging of prostatic carcinoma”, Urologic pathology: the prostate, (Tannenbaum, ed.) (1977) Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 171-197. |
| Gleason: “Histologic grading of prostate cancer: a perspective”; Hum. Pathol. (1992) 23(3):273-279. |
| Gleave et al., “Randomized comparative study of 3 versus 8-month neoadjuvant hormonal therapy before radical prostatectomy : biochemical and pathological effects,” J Urol. (2001) 166:500-507. |
| Gonzalgo et al: “Molecular pathways to prostate cancer”; J Urol. (2003) 170(6 Pt 1):2444-2452. |
| Grambsch et al., “Proportional Hazards Tests and Diagnostics Based on Weighted Residuals,” Biometrika (2013) vol. 81 (3), pp. 515-526. |
| Heagerty et al., “Time-Dependent ROC Curves for Censored Survival Data and a Diagnostic Marker,” Biometrics (2000) vol. 56 (2), pp. 337-344. |
| Henrotin et al.: “Type II collagen peptides for measuring cartilage degradation,” Biorheology (2004) 41 (3-4): Abstract. |
| Humphrey et al: “Histologic grade, DNA ploidy, and intraglandular tumor extent as indicators of tumor progression of clinical Stage B prostatic carcinoma”; Am J Surg Pathol (1991) 15(12):1165-1170. |
| Ito et al., “Linkage of elevated ets-2 expression to hepatocarcinogenesis,” Anticancer Research (2002) 22(4):2385-2389. |
| Jemal et al.: “Cancer statistics,” CA Cancer J Clin. (2005) 55:10-30. |
| Jhavar et al., “Technical Advance: Detection of TMPRSS2-ERG Translocations in Human Prostate Cancer by Expression Profiling Using GeneChip Human Exon 1.0 ST Arrays,” J Mol. Diag (Jan. 2008) vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 50-57. |
| Jones et al., “Frequent mutations of chromatin remodeling gene ARID1A in ovarian clear cell carcinoma” Science (Oct. 8, 2010) 330(6001):228-31. |
| Karan et al., “Current status of the molecular genetics of human prostatic adenocarcinomas,” Int J Cancer, 2003, 103(3):285-293. |
| Kestin, “Potential survival advantage with early androgen deprivation for biochemical failure after external beam radiotherapy: the importance of accurately defining biochemical disease status,” Int J Rad Oncol Biol Phys. (2004) 60:453-62. |
| Kunarso et al., “Transposable elements have rewired the core regulatory network of human embryonic stem cells,” Nat Genet (Jul. 2010) 42(7):631-4. |
| Lawton et al., “Updated results of the phase III Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) trial 8531 evaluating the potential benefit of androgen suppression following standard radiation therapy for unfavorable prognosis carcinoma of the prostate,” Int J Rad Oncol Biol Phys. (2001) 49:937-946. |
| Leyten et al., “Identification of a Candidate Gene Panel for the Early Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer,” Clinical Cancer Research (2015) 21(13):3061-3070. |
| Lin et al., “Cox Regression with Incomplete Covariate Measurements,” Journal of the American Statistical Association (1993) vol. 88 (424), pp. 1341-1349. |
| Liu et al., 2014, Synergistic killing of lung cancer cells by cisplatin and radiation via autophagy and apoptosis, Oncology Letters, 7:1903-1910. |
| Livingston et al., “Homo sapiens CDC20 Cell Division Cycle 20 Homolog (CDC20),” Gene (Apr. 24, 2006). |
| McConkey et al., Apr. 2015, Therapeutic opportunities in the intrinsic subtypes of muscle-invasive bladder cancer, Hematology/Oncology Clinics of North America, 29(2):377-394. |
| McConkey et al., May 2016, A prognostic gene expression signature in the molecular classification of chemotherapy-naïve urothelial cancer is predictive of clinical outcomes from neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a phase 2 trial of dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin with bevacizumab in urothelial cancer, European Urology, 69(5):855-862. |
| Mendiratta et al., “Genomic signatures associated with the development, progression, rand outcome of prostate cancer,” Molecular diagnosis & therapy (2007) 11(6):345-54. |
| Mercer, DW, “Use of multiple markers to enhance clinical utility”, Immunol Ser. (1990) 53: 39-54. |
| Mitelman, “Recurrent chromosome aberrations in cancer,” Mutation Research (2000) 462: 247-253. |
| Montironi et al., “Carcinoma of the prostate: inherited susceptibility, somatic gene defects and androgen receptors,” Virchows Arch. (Jun. 2004) 444(6):503-508. |
| Moul et al., “Early versus delayed hormonal therapy for prostate specific antigen only recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy,” J Urol. (2004) 171:1141- 1147. |
| Moul, “Prostate specific antigen only progression of prostate cancer,” J Urol. (2000) 163:1632-42. |
| Nelson, “Predicting prostate cancer behavior using transcript profiles,” J Urol. (Nov. 2004) 172(5 Pt 2):S28-32; discussion S33. |
| Ohl et al., “Gene expression studies in prostate cancer tissue: which reference gene should be selected for normalization'?,” J. Mol. Med . (2005) 83(12):1014-1024. |
| Oosumi et al., “Mariner transposons in humans”, Nature (Dec. 14, 1995) 378 (6558): 672. |
| Ozen et al., Sep. 24, 2007, Widespread deregulation of microRNA expression in human prostate cancer, Oncogene, 27:1788-1793. |
| Paulo et al., “Molecular Subtyping of Primary Prostate Cancer Reveals Specific and Shared Target Genes of Different ETS Rearrangements,” Neoplasia (Jul. 2012) 14(7):600-611. |
| Porkka et al., “RAD21 and KIAA0196 at 8q24 are amplified and overexpressed in prostate cancer,” Genes Chromosomes Cancer (2007) 39:1-10. |
| Probe Set Listing for the Affymetrix Human Genome U133 Plus 2.0 array (Accessed from https://www.affymetrix.com/analysis/index.affx on Jul. 1, 2015) (Year: 2015). |
| Rabbits, “Chromosomal translocations in human cancer”, Nature (Nov. 10, 1994) 372: 143-149. |
| Reddy et al., “Clinical utility of microarray-derived genetic signatures in predicting outcomes in prostate cancer,” Clinical Genitourinary Cancer (2006) 5(3):187-189. |
| Roberts et al., “The SWI/SNF complex-chromatin and cancer.” Nat Rev Cancer (Feb. 2004) 4(2):133-42. |
| Robertson et al., “Reconstructing the ancient mariners of humans.” Nat Genet. (Apr. 1996) 12(4):360-1. |
| Ross et al., “Tissue-based Genomics Augments Post-prostatectomy Risk Stratification in a Natural History Cohort of Intermediate- and High-Risk Men,” European Urology 69 (2016) pp. 157-165. |
| Rowley, “A new Consistent Chromosomal Abnormal ity in Chronic Myelogenous Leukaemia Identified by Quinacrine fluorescence and Giemsa Staining,” Nature (Jun. 1, 1973) 243:290-293. |
| Rowley, “Chromosome translocations: dangerous liaisons revisited,” Nature Reviews: Cancer (Dec. 2001) 1):245-250. |
| Saito-Hisaminato et al., “Genome-Wide Profiling of Gene Expression in 29 Normal Human Tissues with a cDNA Microarray,” DNA Research (2002) vol. 9, pp. 35-45. |
| Saligan et al., “Supervised Classification by Filter Methods and Recursive Feature Elimination Predicts Rick of Radiotherapy-Related Fatigue in Patients with Prostate Cancer,” Cancer Informatics (2014) 13: 141-152. |
| Sandler et al., “Overall survival after prostate-specific-antigen-detected recurrence following conformal radiation therapy,” Int J Rad Oncol Biol Phys. (2000) 48:629-633. |
| Savinainen et al., “Over expression of EIF3S3 promotes cancer cell growth,” The Prostate (2006) 66: 1144-1150. |
| Schlomm et al., “Molecular staging of prostate cancer in the year 2007,” World .J. Urol. (Mar. 2007) 25(1):19-30. |
| Schmidt et al., “Lack of interferon consensus sequence binding protein (ICSBP) transcripts in human myeloid leukemias,” Blood (1998) 91:22-29. |
| Seiler et al., Oct. 2017, Impact of molecular subtypes in muscle-invasive bladder cancer on predicting response and survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, European Urology, 72(4):544-554. |
| Slotkin et al., “Transposable elements and the epigenetic regulation of the genome.” Nat Rev Genet. (Apr. 2007) 8(4):272-85. |
| Smit et al., “High-Resolution ERG-Expression Profiling on GeneChip Exon 1.0 ST Arrays in Primary and Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer,” BJU International (2013), 111(5):836-842, BJU International. |
| Solo et al., “Prevalence of prostate cancer (PC) clinical states (CS) in the United States: Estimates using a dynamic progression model,” ASCO Annual Meeting, Journal of Clinical Oncology (May 20, 2011) vol. 29, No. 15, Abstract 4637. |
| Stamey et al., “Molecular genetic profiling of Gleason grade 415 prostate cancers compared to benign prostatic hyperplasia,” J Urol. (2001) 166(6):2171-2177. |
| Stavenhagen et al., “An ancient provirus has imposed androgen regulation on the adjacent mouse sex-limited protein Jene.” Cell (Oct. 21, 1988) 55(2):247-54. |
| Stephenson et al., “Postoperative Nomogram Predicting the 10-Year Probability of Prostate Cancer Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy,” J Clin Oncol (2008) vol. 23 (28), pp. 7005-7012. |
| Sun et al., “Aberrant expression of SWI/SNF catalytic subunits BRG1/BRM is associated with tumor development and increased invasiveness in prostate cancers,” Prostate (Feb. 1, 2007) 67(2):203-13. |
| Talantov et al., “Gene Based Prediction of Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Progression After Radical Prostatectomy,” The Journal of Urology (Oct. 2010) vol. 184, 1521-1528. |
| Thompson et al., “Is the GPSM scoring algorithm for patients with prostate cancer valid in the contemporary era?” J Urol. (Aug. 2007) vol. 178 (2), 459-463. |
| Tollefson et al., “Stratification of Patient Risk Based on Prostate-Specific Antigen Doubling Time After Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy,” Mayo Clin Proc. (2007) 82:422-427. |
| Tsuchiya et al., “Clinical significance in situ hybridization analysis in pathologic of alterations of chromosome 8 detected by fluorescence organ-confined prostate cancer,” Genes Chromosomes Cancer (2002) 34:363-371. |
| Versteege et al., “Truncating mutations of hSNF5/INI1 in aggressive paediatric cancer.” Nature (Jul. 9, 1998) 394 6689):203-6. |
| Visakorpi, “The molecular genetics of prostate cancer,” Urology (2003) 62(5 Suppl 1):3-10. |
| Willman et al., “Immunohistochemical staining for DNA topoisomerase II-alpha in benign, premalignant, and malignant lesions of the prostate,” Prostate (Mar. 1, 2000) 42(4):280-286. |
| Winkler et al.: “Stage D1 prostatic adenocarcinoma: significance of nuclear DNA ploidy patterns studied by flow cytometry,” Mayo Clin Proc. (1988) 63(2): 103-112. |
| Wyatt et al., “Heterogeneity in the inter-tumor transcriptome of high risk prostate cancer,” Genome Biology (Aug. 26, 2014) vol. 15, No. 8, pp. 2-14. |
| Yeager et al., “Genome-wide association study of prostate cancer identifies a second risk locus at 8q24,” Nat Genet (2007) 39:645-649. |
| Yeliin et al., “Widespread occurrence of antisense transcription in the human genome,” Nat Biotechnol. (2003) 21(4):379-86. |
| Zanetta et al., “Flow-cytometric analysis of deoxyribonucleic acid content in advanced ovarian carcinoma: its importance in long-term survival,” Am J Obstet Gynecol (1996) 175(5): 1217-1225. |
| Zelefsky et al., “Neoadjuvant hormonal therapy improves the therapeutic ratio in patients with bulky prostatic cancer treated with three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy,” Int J Radiat Oncol Biot Phys. (1994) 29:755-761. |
| Choi et al., Jun. 24, 2014, Intrinsic basal and luminal subtypes of muscle-invasive bladder cancer, Nature Reviews Urology, 11(7):400-410. |
| Dhani et al., 2011, Phase II study of cytarabine in men with docetaxel-refractory, castration-resistnt prostate cancer with evaluation of TMPRSS2-ERG and SPINK1 as serum biomarkers, BJUI, 110:840-845. |
| Ha et al., Nov. 12, 2009, Comparison of affymetrix gene array with the exon array shows potential application for detection of transcript isoform variation, BMC Genomics, 19(1):519. |
| Knowles et al., Dec. 23, 2014, Molecular biology of bladder cancer: new insights into pathogenesis and clinical diversity, Nature Reviews Cancer, 15(1):25-41. |
| Warrick et al., 2016, FOXA1, GATA3 and PPARγ cooperate to drive luminal subtype in bladder cancer: a molecular analysis of established human cell lines, Scientific Reports, 6:38531, DOI: 10.1038, 15 pp. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20140066323 A1 | Mar 2014 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 61684066 | Aug 2012 | US | |
| 61764365 | Feb 2013 | US | |
| 61783124 | Mar 2013 | US |
