Abstract
Bevacizumab is the molecular-targeted agent used for the antiangiogenic therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer. But some patients are resistant to bevacizumab, it needs an effective biomarker to predict the prognosis and responses of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) to bevacizumab therapy. In this work, we developed a qualitative transcriptional signature to individually predict the response of bevacizumab in patients with mCRC. First, using mCRC samples treated with bevacizumab, we detected differentially expressed genes between response and nonresponse groups. Then, the gene pairs, consisting of at least one differentially expressed gene, with stable relative expression orderings in the response samples but reversal stable relative expression orderings in the nonresponse samples were identified, denoted as pairs-bevacizumab. Similarly, we screened the gene pairs significantly associated with primary tumor locations, donated as pairs-LR. Among the overlapped gene pairs between the pairs-bevacizumab and pairs-LR, we adopted a feature selection process to extract gene pairs that reached the highest F-score for predicting bevacizumab response status in mCRC as the final gene pair signature (GPS), denoted as 64-GPS. In two independent datasets, the predicted response group showed significantly better overall survival than the nonresponse group (P = 6.00e−4 in GSE72970; P = 0.04 in TCGA). Genomic analyses showed that the predicted response group was characterized by frequent copy number alternations, whereas the nonresponse group was characterized by hypermutation. In conclusion, 64-GPS was an objective and robust predictive signature for patients with mCRC treated with bevacizumab, which could effectively assist in the decision of clinical therapy.
Introduction
Colorectal cancer is the second most common cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide (1), and almost half of patients are diagnosed with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC; ref. 2). Current treatment for mCRC includes 5-fluorouracil–based chemotherapy either alone or in combination with the molecular-targeted agents such as bevacizumab, which can effectively inhibit tumor angiogenesis by specifically binding to vascular endothelial growth factor A (3, 4). Several studies have demonstrated that the addition of bevacizumab to first-line 5-fluorouracil–based chemotherapy could improve overall survival and progression-free survival in patients with mCRC compared with those receiving 5-fluorouracil–based chemotherapy alone (5, 6). However, only part of patients with mCRC can benefit from bevacizumab (7), and patients treated with bevacizumab would suffer from serious side effects and high treatment costs (8). Therefore, it is urgent to develop an effective biomarker to predict the prognosis and responses of mCRC to bevacizumab therapy.
Several quantitative transcriptional biomarkers have been proposed for predicting bevacizumab response status nowadays (9, 10), and most of them were identified on the basis of the PCR or IHC analysis. For instance, Linda Zuurbier and colleagues proposed that the expression level of APLN, which was detected by PCR or IHC, can be used to predict bevacizumab response status (9). However, due to the effects of the tumor cell percentage and DNA degradation during sample preparation and storage, the PCR technology exists high measurement variations between different laboratories (11). Similarly, it has been reported that approximately 20% of IHC testing results are divergent when carried out in multiple laboratories because of the effects of specimen preprocessing such as tissue fixation, choice of antibody, and detection reagents (12). In addition, IHC results can be greatly influenced by the evaluation criteria and interpretations of the specificity of staining (13). Therefore, the PCR/IHC-based quantitative transcriptional biomarkers are limited to accurately predict bevacizumab response status. In previous work, we have found that the qualitative signatures based on relative expression orderings of gene pairs within a sample, are highly robust against experimental batch effects (14), tumor cell proportion (15), partial RNA degradation (16) and the amplification bias (17).
In this study, considering that left-sided colon cancer may obtain greater benefits from the bevacizumab in comparison with right-sided colon cancer (18, 19), we sought to develop a relative expression orderings-based signature to precisely predict the response status of bevacizumab therapy in mCRC through considering the influence of primary site.
Materials and Methods
Data and preprocessing
The gene expression microarray datasets of mCRC samples used in this study were downloaded from the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO, http://cancergenome.nih.gov/; ref. 20) and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA, https://portal.gdc.cancer.gov/; ref. 21). All datasets were described in detail in Table 1. The TCGA dataset included samples of stage I–IV patients treated with bevacizumab measured by the RNA sequencing platform. The GSE19860, GSE19862, and GSE72970 datasets included stage IV samples treated with 5-fluorouracil–based chemotherapy in combination with bevacizumab measured by the Affymetrix GPL570 platform. All patients were selected for this study did not receive any chemotherapy treatment before primary tumor resection. In addition, 13 fresh–frozen primary tumor tissue samples were collected from 5 patients whose excisions were from different sampling positions with different percentages of tumor cells at Fujian Medical University Union Hospital. The experiments were undertaken with the understanding and written consent of each subject. The study methodologies conformed to the standards set by the Declaration of Helsinki. The study methodologies were approved by the ethics committee of Fujian Medical University Union Hospital. The Institutional Review Board of Union Hospital of Fujian Medical University approved the protocol, and all patients signed written informed consent before sample collection. RNA was extracted using TRizol, and the expression profiles were measured by HiseqXten (Illumina). We used the fragments per kilobase of exon model per million mapped fragments to quantify the gene expression level from RNA sequencing data (Supplementary Table S3).
Datasets used in identifying bevacizumab response signature.
For the expression data measured by the Affymetrix platform, the raw data (.CEL files) was processed using the Robust Multichip Average algorithm for background adjustment without quantile normalization (22). Then, each probe ID was mapped to Entrez gene ID with the custom CDF file. If a probe had no or multiple corresponding Entrez gene IDs, we removed it; and if multiple probes were mapped to the same gene, the arithmetic mean of multiple probe values was used as the expression value of the gene. For the expression data from TCGA, raw count values and the fragments per kilobase of transcript per million mapped reads normalized count values were extracted. Finally, we also download the somatic mutation, DNA methylation, and copy number aberration data for the stage IV samples from TCGA (Table 2) to perform genomic analyses.
Multi-omics data used to validate the signature.
Evaluation of response labels in each dataset
Currently, the common method used to assess tumor response is RECIST (23). But, when RECIST 1.1 was revised, the samples used did not include patients treated with targeted agents (24). In addition, targeted agents do not necessarily induce tumor shrinkage (25). It has been found that the objective response rate of target agents has not always been corresponding with the clinical benefit (26). Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish the accuracy of the original labels of different datasets before identifying the signature.
On the basis of the uncertainty of the drug response evaluation criteria, we used the principal component analysis by differentially expressed genes to determine the accuracy of the original labels. For each dataset downloaded from GEO, differentially expressed genes were identified between the response and nonresponse groups by limma algorithm (27). For dataset downloaded from TCGA, differentially expressed genes was identified using EdgeR algorithm (28). Then, we used the first two principal components with the highest contribution to judge whether the original labels were significantly divided into two types using the R prcomp function with standard parameters.
Identification of relative expression orderings-based bevacizumab-response signature for mCRC
A flowchart for the identification of signature was shown in Fig. 1. First, we adopted RankProd algorithm, which was insensitive to batch effects and dimensionality reduction, to identified differentially expressed genes between the response and nonresponse groups from integrated dataset of all training datasets (29). Second, we identified gene pairs which kept the significantly stable relative expression ordering in the response and nonresponse groups, respectively. For each pair of genes (Gm, Gn), the significance of the relative expression ordering pattern was determined by the cumulative binomial distribution model as follows:
P0 is the probability of observing a relative expression ordering pattern (Gm>Gn or Gm<Gn) in a sample by chance (P0 = 0.5). Among n samples, m samples were observed to satisfy the specific relative expression ordering pattern. We used the Benjamini–Hochberg procedure to control the FDR (30). Third, we identified the gene pairs that with reversal relative expression ordering patterns between the response and nonresponse groups. Among these gene pairs, the gene pairs which consisted of at least one differentially expressed gene were chosen as pairs-bevacizumab. For the left-sided colon cancer and right-sided colon cancer groups, gene pairs with reversal relative expression orderings were screened by the same method among all genes as pairs-LR. After that, given that the patients with left-sided colon cancer obtain greater benefits from the bevacizumab in comparison with the patients with right-sided colon cancer, we identified overlapping gene pairs between pairs-bevacizumab and pairs-LR. For each gene pair, we calculated the frequency difference of relative expression ordering pattern between the response and nonresponse groups. Moreover, considering the robustness of classifier, we narrowed down the number of gene pairs according to the 75th percentile of the frequency difference. For each K ranging from one to the number of gene pairs in the signature, we could compute a F-score. Finally, we selected the k which could reach the largest F-score as the optimal threshold: a sample was determined as response if at least k of the gene pairs' relative expression orderings in this sample voted for response; otherwise, the sample was considered as nonresponder.
Flowchart for depicting the development, validation, and application of the signature, which used to predict the response of bevacizumab.
Pathway enrichment analysis
KEGG enrichment analysis was performed with the R package clusterProfiler version 3.12.0 (31), with a Benjamini–Hochberg correction and an adjusted P value of 0.05.
Survival analysis
In this study, survival analysis was used to show the prognostic difference between distinct groups of the validation datasets. overall survival and progression-free survival are served as the prognosis endpoint. Kaplan–Meier method was used to estimate overall survival or progression-free survival curves, and the significance of difference between distinct groups was calculated using the log-rank test (32). The hazard ratios (HR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated with univariate Cox regression model (33). All statistical analyses were carried out with the R 3.6.0 software package (http://www.r-project.org/).
Results
Evaluation of response labels in each dataset
Using patients with mCRC who received bevacizumab therapy, we identified 2,329, 1,277, and 343 differentially expressed genes between the response and nonresponse groups in GSE19860, GSE19862, and GSE72970, respectively (limma, P < 0.05). Similarly, 4,059 differentially expressed genes were identified in the TCGA dataset (EdgeR, P < 0.05). When principal components were extracted from the differentially expressed genes, there were clear resolutions of the responders from nonresponders in both GSE19860 (Fig. 2A) and GSE19862 datasets (Fig. 2B). However, in the GSE72970 (Fig. 2C) and TCGA (Fig. 2D) datasets, the responders and nonresponders were mixed, indicating that the two groups were not well discriminated by the original label. Moreover, there were not significant differences in the progression-free survival (HR = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.32–1.55; log-rank P = 0.4; Fig. 3B) and overall survival (HR = 0.70; 95% CI, 0.29–1.72; log-rank P = 0.4; Fig. 3D) between original response group and nonresponse group in GSE72970 dataset. Similar results were found in the TCGA dataset (overall survival: HR = 2.10; 95% CI, 0.39–11.22; log-rank P = 0.38; Fig. 4B).
The principal component analysis. Principal component analysis involves a mathematical procedure that represents the maximum of the data information by reducing the space dimension. Here at least 50% of the information was explained with the two principal components used in the graph. The principal components analysis of GSE19860, GSE19862, GSE72970, and TCGA are drawn (A–D).
K–M curves of DFS or OS in GSE72970 and TCGA (A–F). KEGG pathway enrichment analysis of differentially expressed genes in TCGA (G).
Genomic characteristics of classified two groups. The difference of frequencies in copy number aberration (A) and mutation (B) between the two groups.
Therefore, the two datasets (GSE19860 and GSE19862) whose samples were well discriminated by original label were used as the training datasets, and the others were considered as the validation data.
Identification of relative expression orderings-based bevacizumab response signature for mCRC
First, using 28 samples collected from the combined of GSE19860 and GSE19862, we identified 398 differentially expressed genes between the 16 response and 12 nonresponse samples (RankProd, FDR < 0.05). Second, we identified 63,416 gene pairs whose relative expression ordering patterns were significantly associated with the bevacizumab response status of mCRC (binomial test, FDR < 0.05). Among them, 16,027 gene pairs which involving at least one of the differentially expressed genes were chosen as pairs-bevacizumab. Similarly, we selected 123,297 gene pairs that have reversal relative expression ordering patterns between the left-sided colon cancer and right-sided colon cancer groups, and termed them as pairs-LR. There were 218 overlapping gene pairs between pairs-bevacizumab and pairs-LR, 100% of them show same relative expression orderings. Then, we screened gene pairs according to the 75th percentile of the frequency difference values. Finally, 64 gene pairs were selected as candidate gene pairs for predicting the bevacizumab response status (64-GPS, Supplementary Table S1). The F-score of the signature in the training data was 1.00 with K = 43, with a sensitivity of 1.00 and a specificity of 1.00. A sample was classified into response group if at least 43 of the gene pairs' relative expression orderings in this sample voted for response; otherwise, the sample was classified into nonresponse group.
Prognosis assessment of the signature
Using patients receiving bevacizumab therapy with available response and survival data, we tested the predictive performance of the 64-GPS. For the 28 patients with mCRC treated with bevacizumab in GSE72970, 10 patients were predicted as response patients and the others were predicted as nonresponse patients. Because samples were not well discriminated by original labels, the apparent sensitivity and specificity were as low as 41.67% and 68.75%, respectively. The survival analyses showed that the progression-free survival of 10 predicted responders were significantly longer than the 18 nonresponse patients (HR = 4.48; 95% CI, 1.79–11.20; log-rank P = 6.00e−4; Fig. 3A), which was not obtained significant difference between patients with the original bevacizumab response status (HR = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.32–1.55; log-rank P = 0.4; Fig. 3B). The overall survival of the predicted response group was also significantly longer than predicted nonresponse group (HR = 3.31; 95% CI, 1.14–9.70; log-rank P = 2.00e−2; Fig. 3C). Similar results are found in the TCGA dataset (Fig. 3E and F).
In the combined dataset of GSE72970 and TCGA, patients were classified into response and nonresponse groups with significantly different overall survival. The univariate Cox regression analysis revealed 64-GPS (P = 0.002), T-stage (P = 0.02), N-stage (P = 0.004), and datasets (P = 0.09) as statistically significant prognosticators for overall survival. A multivariate Cox analysis show that, after adjusting for clinical covariates (T-stage and N-stage) and datasets, the 64-GPS remained significantly contributed to overall survival (Supplementary Table S2).
To validate the robustness of 64-GPS to cell heterogeneity, we used it to predict the response status of 13 samples from 5 patients. All of samples with different percentages of tumor cells from the same patients were predicted as same bevacizumab response status (Table 3). The results indicated that the performance of 64-GPS was robust to the cell heterogeneity.
The predicted bevacizumab response status of samples with different percentage of tumor cells.
Multi-omics characteristics of the patients identified by the signature
Considering the multi-omics data documented in TCGA, we conducted multi-omics analysis. To further test the transcriptional repeatability of 64-GPS between RNA-seq data and other data, we calculated the consistency of the differentially expressed genes between the TCGA dataset and the other datasets. A total of 4,059 differentially expressed genes were identified between predicted response and nonresponse groups of TCGA (EdgeR, P < 0.05). In GSE19860, GSE19862, and GSE72970 datasets, 2,329, 1,277, and 5,230 differentially expressed genes were identified between the predicted two groups respectively (limma, P < 0.05). Compared with the differentially expressed genes lists between TCGA and GSE19860, 619 (92.7%) of the 668 differentially expressed genes identified in both datasets had the same dysregulation directions. Similar results (97.72% and 87.97%) were observed when TCGA dataset was compared with other datasets (GSE19862, GSE72970), which demonstrated the repeatability of the 64-GPS.
On the basis of the reproducibility of TCGA, functional enrichment analysis showed that the 4,059 differentially expressed genes were significantly enriched in 22 KEGG pathways (FDR < 0.05, hypergeometric distribution, Fig. 3G). Most of them are associated with angiogenesis and the levels of vascular endothelial growth factor. For instance, the “Cell adhesion molecules” plays an important role in the process of angiogenesis (34). Similarly, “PI3K–Akt signaling pathway,” (35) “ECM-receptor interaction,” (36) “glycosaminoglycan biosynthesis - chondroitin sulfate/dermatan sulfate” (37) also have been reported to be associated with angiogenesis; and for “focal adhesion,” combination therapy with focal adhesion kinase inhibitor and the bevacizumab can reduce tumor growth and inhibit the negative effects anti-angiogenic therapy.
We further utilized the TCGA multi-omics data to determine whether there were differences between the two predicted groups in the genome level. Among stage IV samples, 57, 77, and 64 samples had copy number alternations, somatic mutation, and DNA methylation information, respectively.
For the analysis of the copy number alternations data, five genomic regions, including two amplification regions and three deletion regions, had significant differences of copy number alternations frequencies between the predicted two groups (Fisher exact test, P < 0.05). All of these regions had significantly higher copy number alternations frequencies in the response samples than in the nonresponse samples, which are consistent with the results of previously published report (4). Moreover, 11p15.5 and 13q22.1(P = 0.07) were previously reported to be associated with angiogenesis (38). The KLF5 included in 13q22.1 has also been reported to be associated with vascular epithelial growth (Fig. 4A; ref. 39).
For the analysis of the mutation data, we found 8 genes which have significantly different mutation frequencies between the predicted 30 response and 47 nonresponse samples (Fisher exact test, P < 0.05). Some of the mutation genes are known to be relevant to angiogenesis. For example, the GRIN2A mutation could affect the expression of MYH9. It has been reported that the high expression of MYH9 could result in augmented VEGF-A's expression which was targeted by bevacizumab (Fig. 4B; refs. 40, 41). For another example, the CYLDA mutation could affect the expression of MAPK signaling pathway which plays an important role in vascular endothelial growth factor-driven angiogenesis (Fig. 4B; ref. 42).
For the analysis of methylation data, 3 genes had significantly different methylation frequencies between the classified 21 response and 43 nonresponse samples (Fisher exact test, P < 0.05). Among these genes, ZIC gene has been reported to be significantly associated with angiogenesis (43). In addition, the difference methylation genes were enriched in two KEGG pathways that are related to the drug resistance (P < 0.05). For example, “sphingolipid metabolism” plays an important role in anti-VEGF therapy (44).
Discussion
In this study, we developed a qualitative signature termed as 64-GPS to predict the response status of bevacizumab therapy and tested it in two independent datasets measured by different laboratories. Our results showed that predicted response groups had significantly better clinical outcome than the nonresponse groups in the GSE72970 and TCGA datasets. This is consistent with the reports that nonresponse patients have poorer prognosis compare with response patients (5, 6). This indicates that 64-GPS is robust against batch effects and can be easily applied to samples at the individual level.
The specificity and sensitivity were 68.75% and 41.67% in GSE72970, respectively, but in original response samples, the progression-free survival of patients who were reclassified as nonresponder were significantly worse than that of the remained responder confirmed by the signature. Similarly, the progression-free survival and overall survival of patients with original nonresponse but reclassified as responder were significantly better than those of the remained nonresponder patients confirmed by the signature (Supplementary Fig. S1). In the second validation cohorts (TCGA), overall survival showed the similarly pattern (Supplementary Fig. S2). The above results demonstrate well that the signature could more effectively identify bevacizumab response or nonresponse patients than RECIST.
The KEGG enrichment results indicate that our signature is significantly related to the bevacizumab resistance mechanism. Further, we sought to discover genes that may provide new insights into the mechanisms that mediate bevacizumab resistance in colorectal cancer. We screened 25 genes that appeared in more than five enrichment pathways. It was found that 12 of them were significantly enriched in the biological pathway of VEGF receptor. Further, ACTB and MAPK11 contained in 12 genes were significantly overexpressed in the predicted response group compared to the nonresponse group. Given that, we think that ACTB and MAPK11 may play key roles in the response mechanism of bevacizumab and are worth further research through animal experiments or cell line experiments.
Most reports have shown that left-sided colon cancer may obtain greater benefits from the bevacizumab in comparison with right-sided colon cancer (18, 19). However, some studies have reported different conclusions (45, 46). In our result, among the overlapping gene pairs between pairs-bevacizumab and pairs-LR, 100% of them show the same relative expression orderings, which was significantly higher than expected by chance (binomial test, P < 1e−16), indicating that left-sided colon cancer has more characteristics of response to bevacizumab than right-sided colon cancer. Moreover, there are a reason underlying the interaction between primary tumor location and bevacizumab effectiveness is that VEGF-A, the target of bevacizumab, is higher expressed in left-sided colon cancer and rectum than right-sided colon cancer (47). Consequently, it is more convincing that left-sided colon cancer can obtain greater benefits from the bevacizumab in comparison with right-sided colon cancer.
We tested the predictive performance of 64-GPS in glioblastoma and bladder cancer. In the two cancers, bevacizumab is a major molecular-targeted agent. The survival analysis showed that no significant difference between predicted responders and nonresponders. Besides, Seung Won Choi and colleagues (48) proposed COL4A2 as a specific signature of bevacizumab by combining the bevacizumab-related gene set in glioblastoma with the bevacizumab-related gene set in breast cancer proposed by Tian and colleagues (49) Similarly, Using the marker to reclassify mCRC, there was no significant difference in survival between the predicted response and nonresponse groups. That probably because these signatures mainly reflected the specific features of response and nonresponse in different cancers. Moreover, there has been reported that tumors originated from different tissues and cell types vary in terms of their genomic landscapes, prognosis, and their response to therapies, which are probably responsible for the genetic events of transformation interact with cell-intrinsic biological properties (50). Therefore, we will try to seek signature could predict the efficacy of bevacizumab in different cancers in follow-up work.
We certainly acknowledge that our study has limitations. For example, as the lack of adequate drug response data for validation at present, a larger dataset of mCRC treated with bevacizumab is needed to confirm the signature. This study will be done in the future work.
In summary, we developed a relative expression ordering-based signature to predict the prognosis and response of patients with mCRC who treated with bevacizumab. Then, we further focused on a multi-omics analysis by integration of mutation, copy number alternations, and methylation data to systematically analyses the signature.
Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.
Authors' Contributions
Conception and design: J. Yang, T. You, W. Zhao, Z. Guo
Development of methodology: J. Yang, K. Song, W. Guo, Y. Fu, W. Zhao
Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): J. Yang, W. Guo, T. You
Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): J. Yang, W. Guo
Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: J. Yang, K. Song, W. Guo, H. Zheng, Y. Fu, T. You, K. Wang, W. Zhao, Z. Guo
Administrative, technical, or material support (i.e., reporting or organizing data, constructing databases): J. Yang, W. Zhao, Z. Guo
Study supervision: L. Qi, W. Zhao, Z. Guo
Acknowledgments
This work received grants from the following foundations: W. Zhao, the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 61601151); L. Qi, the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 61701143); Z. Guo, the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant nos. 81872396 and 81572935); W. Zhao, the Natural Science Foundation of Heilongjiang Province (grant no. C2016037) and Z. Guo, the Joint Scientific and Technology Innovation Found of Fujian Province (grant no. 2016Y9044). Thanks to all the individuals who participated in this study. We would also like to acknowledge the resources at GEO and TCGA that facilitated this research.
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.
Footnotes
Note: Supplementary data for this article are available at Molecular Cancer Therapeutics Online (http://mct.aacrjournals.org/).
Mol Cancer Ther 2020;19:1497–505
- Received September 10, 2019.
- Revision received December 17, 2019.
- Accepted May 1, 2020.
- Published first May 5, 2020.
- ©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.
References
Volume 19, Issue 7
