Skip to main content
  • AACR Journals
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Focus on Radiation Oncology
      • Novel Combinations
      • Reviews
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Journals
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Focus on Radiation Oncology
      • Novel Combinations
      • Reviews
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Research Articles: Therapeutics, Targets, and Development

Gene expression profiles do not consistently predict the clinical treatment response in locally advanced breast cancer

Therese Sørlie, Charles M. Perou, Cheng Fan, Stephanie Geisler, Turid Aas, Andrew Nobel, Gun Anker, Lars A. Akslen, David Botstein, Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale and Per Eystein Lønning
Therese Sørlie
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Charles M. Perou
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Cheng Fan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stephanie Geisler
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Turid Aas
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andrew Nobel
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gun Anker
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lars A. Akslen
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David Botstein
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Per Eystein Lønning
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-06-0126 Published November 2006
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Neoadjuvant treatment offers an opportunity to correlate molecular variables to treatment response and to explore mechanisms of drug resistance in vivo. Here, we present a statistical analysis of large-scale gene expression patterns and their relationship to response following neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancers. We analyzed cDNA expression data from 81 tumors from two patient series, one treated with doxorubicin alone (51) and the other treated with 5-fluorouracil and mitomycin (30), and both were previously studied for correlations between TP53 status and response to therapy. We observed a low frequency of progressive disease within the luminal A subtype from both series (2 of 36 versus 13 of 45 patients; P = 0.0089) and a high frequency of progressive disease among patients with luminal B type tumors treated with doxorubicin (5 of 8 patients; P = 0.0078); however, aside from these two observations, no other consistent associations between response to chemotherapy and tumor subtype were observed. These specific associations could possibly be explained by covariance with TP53 mutation status, which also correlated with tumor subtype. Using supervised analysis, we could not uncover a gene profile that could reliably (>70% accuracy and specificity) predict response to either treatment regimen. [Mol Cancer Ther 2006;5(11):2914–8]

Keywords:
  • Prediction
  • breast cancer
  • expression profiling
  • molecular subtypes

Introduction

Resistance to cytotoxic compounds is a main reason for therapy failure in most malignancies, including breast cancer. In vitro experiments as well as studies in animal models have shown that mutations in the TP53 gene are associated with chemoresistance (1). Molecular studies of tumors from patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy using either doxorubicin monotherapy or 5-fluorouracil and mitomycin (FUMI) in concert revealed that TP53 mutations affecting the DNA-binding domain of the protein correlate with drug resistance (2–4). However, neither in these tumors nor in the studies reported by others (5) did mutations in TP53 unequivocally predict drug resistance, suggesting that other interactions and genes must be involved (6).

By subjecting the same tumors characterized for TP53 mutations in relation to chemotherapy response to DNA microarray analysis, we were able to classify tumors into five distinct subtypes based on their gene expression patterns (7). This classification showed prognostic effect with respect to relapse-free as well as overall survival in our cohort (8) and also in series of patients examined by other investigators (9). The prognostic significance of gene expression profiles has been well documented with respect to breast cancer (10–13) as well as other malignancies (14–17). Although these findings confirm the biological relevance of such genomic analyses, a prognostic factor provides no specific information about responsiveness to specific treatments and should be distinguished from a “predictive factor” (18, 19). Knowledge about the value of genome-wide expression analyses in predicting treatment response in breast cancer has resulted in at least to two studies correlating gene expression profiles with sensitivity to taxane monotherapy (20, 21) and three studies (22–24) reporting sensitivity to anthracycline combination regimens containing either cyclophosphamide or a taxane. However, the predictive powers achieved in any of these studies do not allow clinical implementation without further evaluations.

The aim of this study was to examine the potential of gene expression profiles as predictive factors of drug sensitivity in two uniformly treated breast cancer cohorts previously characterized for the predictive value of TP53 mutations and for the prognostic importance of gene expression profiles. Similar to findings by others, we found gene expression profiles defined by response-guided supervised analysis to be limited with respect to predicting therapy response.

Materials and Methods

Patient and Treatment Information

The patients included in this study were part of two prospective studies evaluating predictive factors for response to chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer (T3/T4 and/or N2). From one (doxorubicin series), we analyzed tumor samples from a subgroup consisting of 51 patients who were treated with doxorubicin monotherapy weekly in the neoadjuvant setting, scheduled for 16 weeks with 4 weekly assessments of clinical response (3). From the second similar study (FUMI series), we analyzed tumors from 30 patients who were treated with FUMI at 3-week intervals (4). Because these protocols were applied before implementation of the “Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors” criteria (25), for both studies, the response rates were classified according to the International Union Against Cancer criteria (26). Thus, responses were classified as partial response (reduction >50% in the sum of all tumor lesions, calculated for each as the product of the largest diameter and the one perpendicular to it), progressive disease (increase in the diameter product of any individual tumor lesion by >25%), or stable disease (anything between partial response and progressive disease). Therapy was terminated immediately in case progressive disease was revealed. An overview of patient characteristics is shown in Table 1 , and a complete listing of all tumors and experiments is available in Supplementary Table S1.8

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Clinical characteristics of patients included in this study

Microarray Analysis

Gene expression data were collected using cDNA arrays produced at the Stanford Functional Genomics Facility.9 The procedures used, including RNA extraction, hybridization, and data processing, have been described previously (7, 8) and are available at the Stanford Genomics Breast Cancer Consortium Portal Web site.10 The common set of genes used for the doxorubicin series totaled ∼8,000, whereas for the FUMI series this number was ∼30,000 due to more recent production lots of cDNA microarrays. Specifically, for these analyses, the background-subtracted, lowess-normalized (27) log2 ratio (Cy5/Cy3) intensity values were first filtered to select genes that had a signal intensity of at least 30 units above background in both channels. Only genes that met these criteria in at least 70% of the total data set were included for subsequent analysis, which totaled 4,424 probes for the entire data set. Next, missing values were imputed using the k-nearest neighbor imputation algorithm (28). Gene annotation from each data set was translated to UniGene Cluster IDs using the SOURCE database (29). Multiple occurrences of a UniGene Cluster IDs were collapsed by the median value for that ID within an experiment set.

Statistical Analysis

Relationships between gene expression profiles and response to chemotherapy were analyzed using “nearest shrunken centroid classifier” [prediction analysis for microarrays (PAM); ref. 30]. In addition, several other supervised prediction methods were used: recursive sample classification and gene selection with SVM for microarray data (r-SVM; ref. 31), Random Forest by Salford Systems (32), a k-nearest neighbor classifier with either Euclidean distance or one-minus-Spearman correlation as the distance function, and a class nearest centroid metric with either Euclidean distance or one-minus-Spearman correlation as the distance function (See Supplementary data for a more detailed description of the various methods; ref. 33).8 As discussed elsewhere (19), the terms partial response and stable disease are pragmatic terms that describe a status of tumor “growth arrest” with or without a certain degree of macroscopic reduction in tumor size; the discrimination between the two may often be arbitrary. However, progressive disease tumors are distinctive and easily discriminated from the other groups; therefore, our primary statistical analyses aimed at comparing progressive disease tumors versus the others. Finally, because these experiments were done across many different production lots of microarrays, we attempted to correct for systematic array batch bias by using “distance-weighed discrimination” (34).

Results and Discussion

Prognostic versus Predictive Factors

Several gene expression-based classification schemes for various cancer types have emerged from DNA microarray studies over the last years. The biological importance of these classifications is highlighted by two significant observations: first, the possibility that, for each cancer type, including breast (9, 12, 35, 36), lung (15), lymphoma (14, 17), and head and neck (33), it is possible to classify individual tumors into groups characterized by distinct gene profiles, and second, the fact that these classifications provide prognostic information. These analyses, however, have thus far been of limited value for predicting therapeutic response in individual patients. A prognostic factor is traditionally associated with disease-free or overall survival (in the absence of systemic adjuvant therapy), whereas a predictive factor predicts response, or lack of, to a particular treatment (19). Although numerous prognostic factors have been identified in breast cancer, no predictive factors have been generally accepted thus far, with the exception of estrogen receptor-α and progesterone receptor for endocrine therapy and HER2 for trastuzumab. In previous studies (3, 4), we found mutations in the TP53 gene affecting the L2/L3 domains of the protein to be associated with nonresponse to treatment with doxorubicin or FUMI. However, such mutations were only predictive for nonresponse in 60% of the progressive disease tumors. Although our findings strongly advocate a role of the p53 pathway in response to these therapies in breast cancer, they also suggest that other genes must also be involved (6).

Response to Therapy across Different Molecular Subtypes

In this study, we conducted statistical analyses of gene expression data from altogether 81 tumors, which represents one of the largest studies to explore the predictive value of gene expression profiles in breast cancer (23, 37). Response to therapy in tumors across the different, previously defined tumor subgroups is depicted in Fig. 1 . One of 25 tumors belonging to the luminal A subgroup versus 7 of 26 tumors in all other groups were nonresponding (progressive disease) to doxorubicin (P = 0.0496, two-sided Fisher's exact test); for the patients treated with FUMI, 1 of 11 of the luminal A tumors versus 6 of 19 tumors from the other groups experienced progressive disease (P = 0.2146; both data sets combined: P = 0.0089). Interestingly, both of the luminal A type tumors expressing chemoresistance were wild-type for TP53. Although a luminal B profile was associated with resistance to doxorubicin (five of eight progressive disease; P = 0.0078), a similar finding was not identified among the tumors treated with 5-fluorouracil/mitomycin. A differential variation in response across subtypes has also been shown in a recently published study on breast cancer treated with preoperative chemotherapy (35, 37). Our finding that progressive disease was a rare event among tumors expressing the luminal A gene profile is interesting; however, these tumors rarely harbor mutations in the TP53 gene (6 of 36 versus 32 of 44 among the other tumors; P < 0.0001), so this may simply reflect TP53 status among these tumors. Nevertheless, this points to the importance of considering the molecular heterogeneity of tumors when assessing predictive as well as prognostic markers.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Distribution of progressive disease (PD), stable disease (SD), and partial response (PR) tumors and TP53 mutation frequencies across the breast tumor intrinsic subtypes for two different neoadjuvant treatment regimens: doxorubicin monotherapy (Doxo) and FUMI. Tumors are ordered according to the subtypes as presented in Fig. 1 in Sorlie et al. (9). Orange, tumor samples included in this study. TP53 mutation status is shown as percentage of tumors from both series combined (the normal breast-like subtype is excluded). Note that one progressive disease tumor from the FUMI series (Norway FU07-BE) and one stable disease tumor from the doxorubicin series (Norway 80-BE) were unclassified (uc). Source: PNAS, July 8, 2003, vol. 100, no. 14, 8418-8423. Copyright (2003) National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.

Prediction of Therapeutic Response Classes Using Supervised Analyses

To search the gene expression data for patterns associated with response (progressive disease, stable disease, or partial response; no complete response was recorded in these two series) and to explore the feasibility of using such patterns as predictors, PAM was used on all tumor samples obtained before therapy for each of three treatment groups: doxorubicin and FUMI separately and combined.

Doxorubicin. Training a predictor for progressive disease versus partial response (for which significant differences in gene expression might be expected) resulted in overall accuracy of 70% but with only three of eight progressive disease tumors correctly classified. When combining the response groups partial response and stable disease into one class, training of a predictor resulted in a similar accuracy (73%), now with five of eight progressive disease tumors correctly classified.

5-Fluorouracil and Mitomycin. Prediction of progressive disease versus partial response showed an accuracy of 78% with five of seven progressive disease tumors correctly classified. Next, training a predictor for progressive disease versus the combined groups partial response/stable disease resulted in an accuracy of 63% with only two of the progressive disease tumors correctly classified by cross-validation.

Doxorubicin and FUMI Combined. Similar PAM analyses for the two series combined (81 patients of whom 15 experienced progressive disease) showed similar accuracy rates; 62% for progressive disease versus partial response (6 of 15 progressive disease correctly classified) and 62% for progressive disease versus the partial response/stable disease combined group, with 7 progressive disease tumors correctly classified.

In addition to PAM, several additional statistical methods were used to determine if the less than optimal prediction accuracies were due to a particular analysis method (i.e., PAM). In particular, Random Forest, which is a multitree method for classification, and predictive modeling using a support vector machine method, termed r-SVM, which implements recursive gene ranking and selection steps, were both tested. All methods gave similar results, and thus, these results cannot be attributed to the statistical method used. A complete listing of the different methods and the prediction accuracies, sensitivities, and specificities resulting from the altogether seven prediction methods is presented in Supplementary Table S2.8 The values varied to some degree in magnitude, depending on the analysis method used and the sorting of the response groups. In particular, all predictors tended to do poorly in identifying the progressive disease tumors and often classified nonprogressive disease samples correctly. This finding is a critical feature for the objective assessment of predictive profiles because, when a minor class is compared with a major class, a given “accurate” predictor could be developed that simply predicts most of the samples to be the major class.

The expression data used in this study were generated using several different production batches of cDNA arrays, and inconsistencies in such data that arose from process errors have been detected (38). Thus, we analyzed separately data from patients with progressive disease versus those with partial response using samples that had been hybridized on microarrays from the same batch only. Although this improved prediction accuracy up to 80%, only half of the progressive disease tumors were correctly classified (Supplementary Table S2).8 This finding of an inability to accurately identify most progressive disease tumors was true for all the predictors developed using the seven different methods, suggesting that this is inherent in the data and not due to the analysis method.

Conclusions

The aim of this study was to explore whether an analysis of gene expression data in a breast cancer cohort previously shown to yield prognostic gene profiles could identify gene signatures associated with response or resistance to chemotherapy. If so, this could add to the predictive value of TP53 mutations previously reported in the same tumors. However, we could not identify a gene profile using multiple diverse supervised analysis methods, which was highly accurate at identifying either drug-sensitive or drug-resistant tumors. Molecular tumor subtype was modestly correlated with response with luminal A tumors showing a low rate of progressive disease and luminal B tumors treated with doxorubicin showing a high rate of progressive disease. In conclusion, we were not able to show that gene expression profiles can be used to accurately predict chemotherapy response in this data set. Similar to other studies (20–22, 24, 39), these results indicate that supervised analyses of relatively small sample sizes and with incomplete validation may not reveal a gene profile of sufficient predictive power to be of clinical use and suggest that genomic analyses using microarrays may need a different approach that incorporates functional hypotheses (40) to predict therapy sensitivity.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Stanford Microarray Database and the Stanford Functional Genomics Facility for contributing to this project.

Footnotes

  • ↵8 Supplementary material for this article is available at Molecular Cancer Therapeutics Online (http://mct.aacrjournals.org/).

  • ↵9 http://www.microarray.org/sfgf/jsp/home.

  • ↵10 http://genome-www.stanford.edu/breast_cancer/.

  • Grant support: Norwegian Cancer Society, Norwegian Research Council, “SalusAnsvar” Award (A-L. Børresen-Dale), National Cancer Institute Breast Specialized Program of Research Excellence program grant P50-CA58223-09A1, and Breast Cancer Research Foundation (C.M. Perou).

  • 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.

  • Note: The analyses of the data presented in this report are original work of the authors and have not been presented previously. Some molecular data on these cases have been used in two previous studies (see refs. 3 and 4), and the raw microarray data have been published in a different context (see ref. 9).

    • Accepted September 25, 2006.
    • Received March 7, 2006.
    • Revision received June 4, 2006.
  • American Association for Cancer Research

References

  1. ↵
    Wallace-Brodeur RR, Lowe SW. Clinical implications of p53 mutations. Cell Mol Life Sci 1999;55:64–75.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    Aas T, Borresen AL, Geisler S, et al. Specific P53 mutations are associated with de novo resistance to doxorubicin in breast cancer patients. Nat Med 1996;2:811–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    Geisler S, Lonning PE, Aas T, et al. Influence of TP53 gene alterations and c-erbB-2 expression on the response to treatment with doxorubicin in locally advanced breast cancer. Cancer Res 2001;61:2505–12.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    Geisler S, Borresen-Dale AL, Johnsen H, et al. TP53 gene mutations predict the response to neoadjuvant treatment with 5-fluorouracil and mitomycin in locally advanced breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2003;9:5582–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    Kandioler-Eckersberger D, Ludwig C, Rudas M, et al. TP53 mutation and p53 overexpression for prediction of response to neoadjuvant treatment in breast cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res 2000;6:50–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    Lonning PE. Genes causing inherited cancer as beacons to identify the mechanisms of chemoresistance. Trends Mol Med 2004;10:113–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB, et al. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 2000;406:747–52.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    Sorlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, et al. Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2001;98:10869–74.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    Sorlie T, Tibshirani R, Parker J, et al. Repeated observation of breast tumor subtypes in independent gene expression data sets. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2003;100:8418–23.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    Huang E, Cheng SH, Dressman H, et al. Gene expression predictors of breast cancer outcomes. Lancet 2003;361:1590–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. Ma XJ, Wang Z, Ryan PD, et al. A two-gene expression ratio predicts clinical outcome in breast cancer patients treated with tamoxifen. Cancer Cell 2004;5:607–16.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    van't Veer LJ, Dai H, van de Vijver MJ, et al. Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature 2002;415:530–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    van de Vijver MJ, He YD, van't Veer LJ, et al. A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002;347:1999–2009.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    Alizadeh AA, Eisen MB, Davis RE, et al. Distinct types of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma identified by gene expression profiling [see comments]. Nature 2000;403:503–11.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    Garber ME, Troyanskaya OG, Schluens K, et al. Diversity of gene expression in adenocarcinoma of the lung. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2001;98:13784–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. Pomeroy SL, Tamayo P, Gaasenbeek M, et al. Prediction of central nervous system embryonal tumour outcome based on gene expression. Nature 2002;415:436–42.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    Shipp MA, Ross KN, Tamayo P, et al. Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma outcome prediction by gene-expression profiling and supervised machine learning. Nat Med 2002;8:68–74.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    Henderson IC, Patek AJ. The relationship between prognostic and predictive factors in the management of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1998;52:261–88.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    Lonning PE. Study of suboptimum treatment response: lessons from breast cancer. Lancet Oncol 2003;4:177–85.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    Chang JC, Wooten EC, Tsimelzon A, et al. Gene expression profiling for the prediction of therapeutic response to docetaxel in patients with breast cancer. Lancet 2003;362:362–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    Iwao-Koizumi K, Matoba R, Ueno N, et al. Prediction of docetaxel response in human breast cancer by gene expression profiling. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:422–31.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    Ayers M, Symmans WF, Stec J, et al. Gene expression profiles predict complete pathologic response to neoadjuvant paclitaxel and fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:2284–93.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. ↵
    Gianni L, Zambetti M, Clark K, et al. Gene expression profiles in paraffin-embedded core biopsy tissue predict response to chemotherapy in women with locally advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:7265–77.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    Hannemann J, Oosterkamp HM, Bosch CA, et al. Changes in gene expression associated with response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:3331–42.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:205–16.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    Hayward JL, Carbone PP, Heusen JC, Kumaoka S, Segaloff A, Rubens RD. Assessment of response to therapy in advanced breast cancer. Br J Cancer 1977;35:292–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  27. ↵
    Yang YH, Dudoit S, Luu P, et al. Normalization for cDNA microarray data: a robust composite method addressing single and multiple slide systematic variation. Nucleic Acids Res 2002;30:e15.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    Troyanskaya O, Cantor M, Sherlock G, et al. Missing value estimation methods for DNA microarrays. Bioinformatics 2001;17:520–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. ↵
    Diehn M, Sherlock G, Binkley G, et al. SOURCE: a unified genomic resource of functional annotations, ontologies, and gene expression data. Nucleic Acids Res 2003;31:219–23.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. ↵
    Tibshirani R, Hastie T, Narasimhan B, Chu G. Diagnosis of multiple cancer types by shrunken centroids of gene expression. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002;99:6567–72.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. ↵
    Zhang X, Wong WH. Recursive sample classification and gene selection based on SVM: method and software description. Technical report. Boston (MA): Department of Biostatistics, Harvard School of Public Health; 2001. p. 1–5. [http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/bioinfocore/r-svm.pdf].
  32. ↵
    Breiman L. Random forests. Technical report. Berkeley (CA): Department of Statistics, University of California; 2001.
  33. ↵
    Chung CH, Parker JS, Karaca G, et al. Molecular classification of head and neck squamous cell carcinomas using patterns of gene expression. Cancer Cell 2004;5:489–500.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    Benito M, Parker J, Du Q, et al. Adjustment of systematic microarray data biases. Bioinformatics 2004;20:105–14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. ↵
    Bertucci F, Finetti P, Rougemont J, et al. Gene expression profiling identifies molecular subtypes of inflammatory breast cancer. Cancer Res 2005;65:2170–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. ↵
    Sotiriou C, Neo SY, McShane LM, et al. Breast cancer classification and prognosis based on gene expression profiles from a population-based study. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2003;100:10393–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. ↵
    Rouzier R, Perou CM, Symmans WF, et al. Breast cancer molecular subtypes respond differently to preoperative chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res 2005;11:5678–85.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. ↵
    Tu IP, Schaner M, Diehn M, et al. A method for detecting and correcting feature misidentification on expression microarrays. BMC Genomics 2004;5:64.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    Jansen MP, Foekens JA, van Staveren IL, et al. Molecular classification of tamoxifen-resistant breast carcinomas by gene expression profiling. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:732–40.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. ↵
    Lønning PE, Sørlie T, Børresen-Dale A-L. Genomics in breast cancer—therapeutic implications. Nat Clin Pract Oncol 2005;2:26–33.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top
Molecular Cancer Therapeutics: 5 (11)
November 2006
Volume 5, Issue 11
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Molecular Cancer Therapeutics article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Gene expression profiles do not consistently predict the clinical treatment response in locally advanced breast cancer
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Molecular Cancer Therapeutics.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Gene expression profiles do not consistently predict the clinical treatment response in locally advanced breast cancer
Therese Sørlie, Charles M. Perou, Cheng Fan, Stephanie Geisler, Turid Aas, Andrew Nobel, Gun Anker, Lars A. Akslen, David Botstein, Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale and Per Eystein Lønning
Mol Cancer Ther November 1 2006 (5) (11) 2914-2918; DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-06-0126

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Gene expression profiles do not consistently predict the clinical treatment response in locally advanced breast cancer
Therese Sørlie, Charles M. Perou, Cheng Fan, Stephanie Geisler, Turid Aas, Andrew Nobel, Gun Anker, Lars A. Akslen, David Botstein, Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale and Per Eystein Lønning
Mol Cancer Ther November 1 2006 (5) (11) 2914-2918; DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-06-0126
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results and Discussion
    • Conclusions
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Trabectedin (ET-743) promotes differentiation in myxoid liposarcoma tumors
  • Notch1 mediates growth suppression of papillary and follicular thyroid cancer cells by histone deacetylase inhibitors
  • WIF1, a Wnt pathway inhibitor, regulates SKP2 and c-myc expression leading to G1 arrest and growth inhibition of human invasive urinary bladder cancer cells
Show more Research Articles: Therapeutics, Targets, and Development
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook  Twitter  LinkedIn  YouTube  RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Meeting Abstracts

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About MCT

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
eISSN: 1538-8514
ISSN: 1535-7163

Advertisement