Prognostic relevance of gene signatures in high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma

• Published in: Journal of clinical oncology Vol. 31; no. 15_suppl; p. 5510
• Main Authors: Konecny, Gottfried E., Wang, Chen, Winterhoff, Boris, Dering, Judy, Ginther, Charles, Chen, Hsiao-Wang, Hamidi, Habib, Podratz, Karl C., Cliby, William, Dowdy, Sean Christopher, Haluska, Paul, Hartmann, Lynn C., Kalli, Kimberly, Goode, Ellen L., Slamon, Dennis J.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 20.05.2013
• ISSN: 0732-183X; 1527-7755
• DOI: 10.1200/jco.2013.31.15_suppl.5510

Abstract only 5510 Background: Transcriptional profiling of ovarian cancers has proven to be complex. As such it has been difficult to validate existing signatures across studies. Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) researchers have identified four molecular subtypes of high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC). However, survival duration did not differ significantly for the TCGA subtypes. Potential limitations of the TCGA data include short clinical follow-up (45% were alive at the time of last follow-up) and the need to unify gene expression measures from multiple platforms. Methods: Clinically annotated stage-II–IV HGSOC samples (n = 175) with >70% tumor cell content were profiled using the Agilent Whole Human Genome 4 x 44K chip. To identify subtypes non-negative matrix factorization (NMF) of mRNA expression was performed using ~2000 genes with the highest variability across patients. In parallel differentially expressed genes were identified using the Rosetta Similarity Search Tool as well as analysis of variance based on genes known to be involved in epithelial to mesenchymal transition. Results: Median follow-up time was 35 months (range, 0–202 months, 12% were alive at the time of last follow-up). NMF clustering confirmed four HGSOC subtypes (immunoreactive, differentiated, proliferative, and mesenchymal) on the basis of gene content in the clusters. Pathway signatures with therapeutic potential were identified for individual or multiple subtypes. Survival differed significantly between the four molecular subgroups in univariate (Hazard Ratio [HR] 2.4, 95% CI 1.5-4.1, p = 0.007) and multivariate (HR 2.3, 95% CI 1.3-4.0, p = 0.003) analyses when accounting for age, stage, grade, and postoperative residual tumor. Using the supervised clustering approach two distinct molecular subtypes of HGSOC based on epithelial and mesenchymal gene expression signatures were identified with significantly different survival outcomes. Conclusions: Here we independently validate and expand upon the molecular TCGA classification of HGSOC. The potential of these two prognostic classifiers may lie in their ability to recognize categories of patients that are more likely to respond to particular therapies.