U.S. patent application number 11/131324 was filed with the patent office on 2005-12-22 for cell-based detection and differentiation of lung cancer.
This patent application is currently assigned to MONOGEN, INC.. Invention is credited to Hirsch, Adrian, Hirsch, Kenneth S., Pressman, Norman J..
Application Number | 20050282201 11/131324 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 23049031 |
Filed Date | 2005-12-22 |
United States Patent
Application |
20050282201 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
Pressman, Norman J. ; et
al. |
December 22, 2005 |
Cell-based detection and differentiation of lung cancer
Abstract
The present invention provides a method for detecting and
differentiating disease states with high sensitivity and
specificity. The method allows for a determination of whether a
cell-based sample contains abnormal cells and, for certain
diseases, is capable of determining the histologic type of disease
present. The method detects changes in the level and pattern of
expression of the molecular markers in the cell-based sample. Panel
selection and validation procedures are also provided.
Inventors: |
Pressman, Norman J.;
(Glencoe, IL) ; Hirsch, Kenneth S.; (Redwood City,
CA) ; Hirsch, Adrian; (Redwood City, CA) |
Correspondence
Address: |
FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP
SUITE 500
3000 K STREET NW
WASHINGTON
DC
20007
US
|
Assignee: |
MONOGEN, INC.
|
Family ID: |
23049031 |
Appl. No.: |
11/131324 |
Filed: |
May 18, 2005 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
|
|
11131324 |
May 18, 2005 |
|
|
|
10095297 |
Mar 12, 2002 |
|
|
|
6939670 |
|
|
|
|
60274638 |
Mar 12, 2001 |
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
435/6.11 ;
435/287.2 |
Current CPC
Class: |
G01N 33/57423 20130101;
G01N 33/57492 20130101; G01N 33/56966 20130101 |
Class at
Publication: |
435/006 ;
435/287.2 |
International
Class: |
C12Q 001/68; C12M
001/34 |
Claims
1.-34. (canceled)
35. A panel for discriminating adenocarcinoma among other types of
lung cancer, wherein the panel comprises a plurality of probes each
of which specifically binds to a marker associated with a specific
type of lung cancer, wherein: (a) the pattern of binding of the
component probes of the panel to cells in a cytology sample
discriminates adenocarcinoma among other types of lung cancer, and
(b) the plurality of probes comprises a probe that binds to Mucin 1
or a correlate marker thereof and a probe that binds to thyroid
transcription factor 1 or a correlate marker thereof, wherein
"correlate markers" are as depicted in the correlation matrix shown
in FIG. 4.
36. The panel of claim 35, wherein the plurality of probes further
comprises at least one probe that binds to a marker selected from
the group consisting of VEGF, SP-A, BCL-2, ER-related (p29), Glut
3, and correlate markers thereof as depicted in the correlation
matrix shown in FIG. 4.
37. A panel for discriminating squamous cell carcinoma among other
types of lung cancer, wherein the panel comprises a plurality of
probes each of which specifically binds to a marker associated with
a specific type of lung cancer, wherein: (a) the pattern of binding
of the component probes of the panel to cells in a cytology sample
discriminates squamous cell carcinoma among other types of lung
cancer, and (b) the plurality of probes comprises a probe that
binds to CD44v6 or a correlate marker thereof and a probe that
binds to ER-related (p29) or a correlate marker thereof, wherein
"correlate markers" are as depicted in the correlation matrix shown
in FIG. 4.
38. The panel of claim 37, wherein the plurality of probes further
comprises at least one probe that binds to a marker selected from
the group consisting of VEGF, thrombomodulin, Glut 1, MAGE 3, and
correlate markers thereof as depicted in the correlation matrix
shown in FIG. 4.
39. A panel for discriminating large cell carcinoma among other
types of lung cancer, wherein the panel comprises a plurality of
probes each of which specifically binds to a marker associated with
a specific type of lung cancer, wherein: (a) the pattern of binding
of the component probes of the panel to cells in a cytology sample
discriminates large cell carcinoma among other types of lung
cancer, and (b) the plurality of probes comprises a probe that
binds to VEGF or a correlate marker thereof and a probe that binds
to P120 or a correlate marker thereof, wherein "correlate markers"
are as depicted in the correlation matrix shown in FIG. 4.
40. The panel of claim 39, wherein the plurality of probes further
comprises a probe that binds to Cyclin A or a correlate marker
thereof as depicted in the correlation matrix shown in FIG. 4.
41. A panel for discriminating mesothelioma among other types of
lung cancer, wherein the panel comprises a plurality of probes each
of which specifically binds to a marker associated with a specific
type of lung cancer, wherein: (a) the pattern of binding of the
component probes of the panel to cells in a cytology sample
discriminates mesothelioma among other types of lung cancer, and
(b) the plurality of probes comprises a probe that binds to CD44v6
or a correlate marker thereof, a probe that binds to PCNA or a
correlate marker thereof and a probe that binds to HERA or a
correlate marker thereof, wherein "correlate markers" are as
depicted in the correlation matrix shown in FIG. 4.
42. A panel for discriminating mesothelioma among other types of
lung cancer, wherein the panel comprises a plurality of probes each
of which specifically binds to a marker associated with a specific
type of lung cancer, wherein: (a) the pattern of binding of the
component probes of the panel to cells in a cytology sample
discriminates mesothelioma among other types of lung cancer, and
(b) the plurality of probes comprises a probe that binds to CD44v6
or a correlate marker thereof as depicted in the correlation matrix
shown in FIG. 4.
43. A panel for discriminating mesothelioma among other types of
lung cancer, wherein the panel comprises a plurality of probes each
of which specifically binds to a marker associated with a specific
type of lung cancer, wherein: (a) the pattern of binding of the
component probes of the panel to cells in a cytology sample
discriminates mesothelioma among other types of lung cancer, and
(b) the plurality of probes comprises a probe that binds to PCNA or
a correlate marker thereof as depicted in the correlation matrix
shown in FIG. 4.
44. A panel for discriminating small cell carcinoma among other
types of lung cancer, wherein the panel comprises a plurality of
probes each of which specifically binds to a marker associated with
a specific type of lung cancer, wherein: (a) the pattern of binding
of the component probes of the panel to cells in a cytology sample
discriminates small cell carcinoma among other types of lung
cancer, and (b) the plurality of probes comprises a probe that
binds to PCNA or a correlate marker thereof, a probe that binds to
BCL-2 or a correlate marker thereof, and a probe that binds to EGFR
or a correlate marker thereof, wherein "correlate markers" are as
depicted in the correlation matrix shown in FIG. 4.
45. A cell-based method for discriminating adenocarcinoma among
other types of lung cancer comprising: (a) contacting cells from a
cytology sample on one or more microscope slides with a panel
comprising a plurality of probes; and (b) analyzing the pattern of
binding of the component probes of the panel to cells in the
cytology sample to discriminate adenocarcinoma among other types of
lung cancer, wherein the plurality of probes comprises a probe that
binds to Mucin 1 or a correlate marker thereof and a probe that
binds to thyroid transcription factor 1 or a correlate marker
thereof, wherein "correlate markers" are as depicted in the
correlation matrix shown in FIG. 4.
46. The method of claim 45, wherein the plurality of probes further
comprises at least one probe that binds to a marker selected from
the group consisting of VEGF, SP-A, BCL-2, ER-related (p29), Glut
3, and correlate markers thereof as depicted in the correlation
matrix shown in FIG. 4.
47. A cell-based method for discriminating squamous cell carcinoma
among other types of lung cancer comprising: (a) contacting cells
from a cytology sample on one or more microscope slides with a
panel comprising a plurality of probes; and (b) analyzing the
pattern of binding of the component probes of the panel to cells in
the cytology sample to discriminate squamous cell carcinoma among
other types of lung cancer, wherein the plurality of probes
comprises a probe that binds to CD44v6 or a correlate marker
thereof and a probe that binds to ER-related (p29) or a correlate
marker thereof, wherein "correlate markers" are as depicted in the
correlation matrix shown in FIG. 4.
48. The method of claim 47, wherein said plurality of probes
further comprises at least one probe that binds to a marker
selected from the group consisting of VEGF, thrombomodulin, Glut 1,
MAGE 3, and correlate markers thereof as depicted in the
correlation matrix shown in FIG. 4.
49. A cell-based method for discriminating large cell carcinoma
among other types of lung cancer comprising: (a) contacting cells
from a cytology sample on one or more microscope slides with a
panel comprising a plurality of probes; and (b) analyzing the
pattern of binding of the component probes of the panel to cells in
the cytology sample to discriminate large cell carcinoma among
other types of lung cancer, wherein the plurality of probes
comprises a probe that binds to VEGF or a correlate marker thereof
and a probe that binds to P120 or a correlate marker thereof,
wherein "correlate markers" are as depicted in the correlation
matrix shown in FIG. 4.
50. The method of claim 49, wherein the plurality of probes further
comprises a probe that binds to Cyclin A or a correlate marker
thereof as depicted in the correlation matrix shown in FIG. 4.
51. A cell-based method for discriminating mesothelioma among other
types of lung cancer comprising: (a) contacting cells from a
cytology sample on one or more microscope slides with a panel
comprising a plurality of probes; and (b) analyzing the pattern of
binding of the component probes of the panel to cells in the
cytology sample to discriminate mesothelioma among other types of
lung cancer, wherein the plurality of probes comprises a probe that
binds to CD44v6 or a correlate marker thereof, a probe that binds
to PCNA or a correlate marker thereof, and a probe that binds to
HERA or a correlate marker thereof, wherein "correlate markers" are
as depicted in the correlation matrix shown in FIG. 4.
52. A cell-based method for discriminating mesothelioma among other
types of lung cancer comprising: (a) contacting cells from a
cytology sample on one or more microscope slides with a panel
comprising a plurality of probes; and (b) analyzing the pattern of
binding of the component probes of the panel to cells in the
cytology sample to discriminate mesothelioma among other types of
lung cancer, wherein the plurality of probes comprises a probe that
binds to CD44v6 or a correlate marker thereof as depicted in the
correlation matrix shown in FIG. 4.
53. A cell-based method for discriminating mesothelioma among other
types of lung cancer comprising: (a) contacting cell's from a
cytology sample on one or more microscope slides with a panel
comprising a plurality of probes; and (b) analyzing the pattern of
binding of the component probes of the panel to cells in the
cytology sample to discriminate mesothelioma among other types of
lung cancer, wherein the plurality of probes comprises a probe that
binds to PCNA or a correlate marker thereof as depicted in the
correlation matrix shown in FIG. 4.
54. A cell-based method for discriminating small cell carcinoma
among other types of lung cancer comprising: (a) contacting cells
from a cytology sample on one or more microscope slides with a
panel comprising a plurality of probes; and (b) analyzing the
pattern of binding of the component probes of the panel to cells in
the cytology sample to discriminate small cell carcinoma among
other types of lung cancer, wherein the plurality of probes
comprises a probe that binds to PCNA or a correlate marker thereof,
a probe that binds to BCL-2 or a correlate marker thereof, and a
probe that binds to EGFR or a correlate marker thereof, wherein
"correlate markers" are as depicted in the correlation matrix shown
in FIG. 4.
Description
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
[0001] The present invention relates to early detection of a
general disease state in a patient. The present invention also
relates to discrimination (differentiation) between specific
disease states in their early stages.
[0002] Early detection of a specific disease state can greatly
improve a patient's chance for survival by permitting early
diagnosis and early treatment while the disease is still localized
and its pathologic effects limited anatomically and
physiologically. Two key evaluative measures of any test or disease
detection method are its sensitivity (Sensitivity=True
Positives/(True Positives+False Negatives) and specificity
(Specificity True Negatives/(False Positives+True Negatives), which
measure how well the test performs to accurately detect all
affected individuals without exception, and without falsely
including individuals who do not have the target disease.
Historically, many diagnostic tests have been criticized due to
poor sensitivity and specificity.
[0003] Sensitivity is a measure of a test's ability to detect
correctly the target disease in an individual being tested. A test
having poor sensitivity produces a high rate of false negatives,
i.e., individuals who have the disease but are falsely identified
as being free of that particular disease. The potential danger of a
false negative is that the diseased individual will remain
undiagnosed and untreated for some period of time, during which the
disease may progress to a later stage wherein treatments, if any,
may be less effective. An example of a test that has low
sensitivity is a protein-based blood test for HIV. This type of
test exhibits poor sensitivity because it fails to detect the
presence of the virus until the disease is well established and the
virus has invaded the bloodstream in substantial numbers. In
contrast, an example of a test that has high sensitivity is
viral-load detection using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR).
High sensitivity is achieved because this type of test can detect
very small quantities of the virus (see Lewis, D. R. et al.
"Molecular Diagnostics: The Genomic Bridge Between Old and New
Medicine: A White Paper on the Diagnostic Technology and Services
Industry" Thomas Weisel Partners, Jun. 13, 2001).
[0004] Specificity, on the other hand, is a measure of a test's
ability to identify accurately patients who are free of the disease
state. A test having poor specificity produces a high rate
[0005] Specificity, on the other hand, is a measure of a test's
ability to identify accurately patients who are free of the disease
state. A test having poor specificity produces a high rate of false
positives, i.e., individuals who are falsely identified as having
the disease. A drawback of false positives is that they force
patients to undergo unnecessary medical procedures treatments with
their attendant risks, emotional and financial stresses, and which
could have adverse effects on the patient's health. A feature of
diseases which makes it difficult to develop diagnostic tests with
high specificity is that disease mechanisms often involve a
plurality of genes and proteins. Additionally, certain proteins may
be elevated for reasons unrelated to a disease state. An example of
a test that has high specificity is a gene-based test that can
detect a p53 mutation. A p53 mutation will never be detected unless
there are cancer cells present (see Lewis, D. R. et al. "Molecular
Diagnostics: The Genomic Bridge Between Old and New Medicine: A
White Paper on the Diagnostic Technology and Services Industry"
Thomas Weisel Partners, Jun. 13, 2001).
[0006] Cellular markers are naturally occurring molecular
structures within cells that can be discovered and used to
characterize or differentiate cells in health and disease. Their
presence can be detected by probes, invented and developed by human
beings, which bind to markers enabling the markers to be detected
through visualization and/or quantified using imaging systems. Four
classes of cell-based marker detection technologies are
cytopathology, cytometry, cytogenetics and proteomics, which are
identified and described below.
[0007] Cytopathology relies upon the visual assessment by human
experts of cytomorphological changes within stained whole-cell
populations. An example is the cytological screening and
cytodiagnosis of Papanicolaou-stained cervical-vaginal specimens by
cytotechnologists and cytopathologists, respectively. Unlike
cytogenetics, proteomics and cytometry, cytopathology is not a
quantitative tool. While it is the state-of-the-art in clinical
diagnostic cytology, it is subjective and the diagnostic results
are often not highly sensitive or reproducible, especially at early
stages of cancer (e.g., ASCUS, LSIL).
[0008] Tests that rely on morphological analyses involve observing
a sample of a patient's cells under a microscope to identify
abnormalities in cell and nuclear shape, size, or staining
behavior. When viewed through a microscope, normal mature
epithelial cells appear large and well differentiated, with
condensed nuclei. Cells characterized by dysplasia, however, may be
in a variety of stages of differentiation, with some cells being
very immature. Finally, cells characterized by invasive carcinoma
often appear undifferentiated, with very little cytoplasm and
relatively large nuclei.
[0009] A drawback to diagnostic tests that rely on morphological
analyses is that cell morphology is a lagging indicator. Since form
follows function, often the disease state has already progressed to
a critical stage by the time the disease becomes evident by
morphological analysis. The initial stages of a disease
involve-chemical changes at a molecular level. Changes that are
detectable by viewing cell features under a microscope are not
apparent until later stages of the disease. Therefore, tests that
measure chemical changes on a molecular level, referred to as
"molecular diagnostic" tests, are more likely to provide early
detection than tests that rely on morphological analyses alone.
[0010] Cytometry is based upon the flow-microfluorometric
instrumental analysis of fluorescently stained cells moving in
single file in solution (flow cytometry) or the computer-aided
microscope instrumental analysis of stained cells deposited onto
glass microscope slides (image cytometry). Flow cytometry
applications include leukemia and lymphoma immunophenotyping. Image
cytometry applications include DNA ploidy, Malignancy-Associated
Changes (MACs) and S-phase analyses. The flow and image cytometry
approaches yield quantitative data characterizing the cells in
suspension or on a glass microscope slide. Flow and image cytometry
can produce good marker detection and differentiation results
depending upon the sensitivity and specificity of the cellular
stains and flow/image measurement features used.
[0011] Malignancy-Associated Changes (MACs) have been qualitatively
observed and reported since the early to mid-1900 's (OC Gruner:
"Study of the changes met with leukocytes in certain cases of
malignant disease" in Brit J Surg 3: 506-522, 1916) (H E Neiburgs,
F G Zak, D C Allen, H Reisman, T Clardy: "Systemic cellular changes
in material from human and animal tissues" in Transactions,
7.sup.th Ann Mtg Inter Soc Cytol Council, pp 137-144, 1959). From
the mid-1900's through 1975, MACs were documented in independent
qualitative histology and cytology studies in buccal mucosa and
buccal smears (Nieburgs, Finch, Klawe), duodenum (Nieburgs), liver
(Elias, Nieburgs), niegakaryocytes (Ramsdahl), cervix (Nieburgs,
Howdon), skin (Kwitiken), blood and bone marrow (Nieburgs),
monocytes and leukocytes (van Haas, Matison, Clausen), and lung and
sputum (Martuzzi and Oppen Toth). Before 1975 these qualitative
studies reported MAC-based sensitivities for specific disease
detection from 76% to 97% and specificities from 50% to 90%. In
1975 Oppen Toth reported a sensitivity of 76% and specificity of
81% in a qualitative sputum analysis study.
[0012] Quantitative observations regarding MAC-based probe analysis
began two to three decades ago (H Klawe, J Rowinski: "Malignancy
associated changes (MAC) in cells of buccal smears detected by
means of objective image analysis" in Acta Cytol 18: 30-33, 1974)
(G L Wied, P H Bartels, M Bibbo, J J Sychra: "Cytomorphometric
markers for uterine cancer in intermediate cells" in Analyt Quant
Cytol 2: 257-263, 1980) (G Burger, U Jutting, K Rodenacker:
"Changes in benign population in cases of cervical cancer and its
precursors" in Analyt Quant Cytol 3: 261-271, 1981). MACs were
documented in independent quantitative histology and cytology
studies in buccal mucosa and smears Klawe, Burger), cervix (Wied,
Burger, Bartels, Vooijs, Reinhardt, Rosenthal, Boon, Katzke,
Haroske, Zahniser), breast (King, Bibbo, Susnik), bladder and
prostate (Sherman, Montironi), colon (Bibbo), lung and sputum
(Swank, MacAulay, Payne), and nasal mucosa (Reith) studies with
MAC-based sensitivities from 70% to 89% and specificities from 52%
to 100%. Marek and Nakhosteen showed (1999, American Thoracic
Society annual meeting) the results from two quantitative pulmonary
studies showing (a) sensitivity of 89% and specificity of 92%, and
(b) sensitivity of 91% and specificity of 100%.
[0013] Clearly, Malignancy-Associated Changes (MACs) are
potentially useful probes that result from the image-cytometry
marker detection technology. MAC-based features from DNA-stained
nuclei can be used in conjunction with other molecular diagnostic
probes to create optimized molecular diagnostic panels for the
detection and differentiation of lung cancer and other disease
states.
[0014] Cytogenetics detects specific chromosome-based intracellular
changes using, for example, in situ hybridization (ISH) technology.
ISH technology can be based upon fluorescence (FISH), multi-color
fluorescence (M-FISH), or light-absorption-based chromogenics
imaging (CHRISH) technologies. The family of ISH technologies uses
DNA or RNA probes to detect the presence of the complementary DNA
sequence in cloned bacterial or cultured eukaryotic cells. FISH
technology can, for example, be used for the detection of genetic
abnormalities associated with certain cancers. Examples include
probes for Trisomy 8 and HER-2 neu. Other technologies such as
polymerase chain reactions (PCR) can be used to detect B-cell and
T-cell gene rearrangements. Cytogenetics is a highly specific
marker detection technology since it detects the causative or
"trigger" molecular event producing a pathology condition. It may
be less sensitive than the other marker detection technologies
because fewer events may be present to detect. In situ
hybridization (ISH) is a molecular diagnostic method uses
gene-based analyses to detect abnormalities on the genetic level
such as mutations, chromosome errors or genetic material inserted
by a specific pathogen. For example, in situ hybridization may
involve measuring the level of a specific mRNA by treating a sample
of a patient's cells with labeled primers designed to hybridize to
the specific mRNA, washing away unbound primers and measuring the
signal of the label. Due to the uniqueness of gene sequences, a
test involving the detection of gene sequences will likely have a
high specificity, yielding very few false positives. However,
because the amount of genetic material in a sample of cells may be
very low, only a very weak signal may be obtained. Therefore, in
situ hybridization tests that do not employ pre-amplification
techniques will likely have a poor specificity, yielding many false
negatives.
[0015] Proteomics depends upon cell characterization and
differentiation resulting from the over-expression,
under-expression, or presence/absence of unique or specific
proteins in populations of normal or abnormal cell types.
Proteomics includes not only the identification and quantification
of proteins, but also the determination of their localization,
modifications, interactions, chemical activities, and
cellular/extracellular functions. Immunochemistry
(immunocytochemistry in cells and immunohistochemistry (IHC) in
tissues) is the technology used, either qualitatively or
quantitatively (QIHC) to stain antigens (i.e., proteomes) using
antibodies. Immunostaining procedures use a dye as the detection
indicator. Examples of IHC applications include analyses for ER
(estrogen receptor), PR progesterone receptor), p53 tumor
suppressor genes, and EGRF prognostic markers. Proteomics is
typically a more sensitive marker detection technology than
cytogenetics because there are often orders of magnitude more
protein molecules to detect using proteomics than there are
cytogenetic mutations or gene-sequence alterations to detect using
cytogenetics. However, proteomics may have a poorer specificity
than the cytogenetic marker detection technology since multiple
pathologies may result in similar changes in protein
over-expression or under-expression. Immunochemistry involves
histological or cytological localization of immunoreactive
substances in tissue sections or cell preparations, respectively,
often utilizing labeled antibodies as probe reagents.
Immunochemistry can be used to measure the concentration of a
disease marker (specific protein) in a sample of cells by treating
the cells with an agent such as a labeled antibody (probe) that is
specific for an epitope on the disease marker, then washing away
unbound antibodies and measuring the signal of the label.
Immunochemistry is based on the property that cancer cells possess
different levels of certain disease markers than do healthy cells.
The concentration of a disease marker in a cancer cell is generally
large enough to produce a large signal. Therefore, tests that rely
on immunochemistry will likely have a high sensitivity, yielding
few false negatives. However, because other factors in addition to
the disease state may cause the concentration of a disease marker
to become raised or lowered, tests that rely on immunochemical
analysis of a specific disease marker will likely have poor
specificity, yielding a high rate of false positives.
[0016] The present invention provides a noninvasive disease state
detection and discrimination method with both high sensitivity and
high specificity. The method involves contacting a cytological
sample suspected of containing diseased cells with a panel of
probes comprising a plurality of agents, each of which
quantitatively binds to a specific disease marker, and detecting
and analyzing the pattern of binding of the probe agents. The
present invention also provides methods of constructing and
validating a panel of probes for detecting a specific disease (or
group of diseases) and discriminating among its various disease
states. Illustrative panels for detecting lung cancer and
discriminating among different types of lung cancer are also
provided.
[0017] A human disease results from the failure of the human
organism's adaptive mechanisms to neutralize external or internal
insults which result in abnormal structures or functions within the
body's cells, tissues, organs or systems. Diseases can be grouped
by shared mechanisms of causation as illustrated below, in Table
1.
1TABLE 1 Classes of Diseases Examples of Disease States Allergy
Adverse reactions to foods and plants Cardiovascular Heart failure,
atherosclerosis Degenerative (neurological and Alzheimer's and
Parkinson's muscular) Diet Non-nutritional substances and
excess/imbalanced nutrition Hereditary Sickle cell anemia, cystic
fibrosis Immune HIV and autoimmune Infection Viral, bacterial,
fungal, parasitic Metabolic Diabetes Molecular and cell biology
Cancer (neoplasia) Toxic insults Alcohol, drugs, environmental
mutagens and carcinogens Trauma Bodily injury from automobile
collision
[0018] Disease states are either caused by or result in abnormal
changes (i.e., pathological conditions) at a subcellular, cellular,
tissue, organ, or human anatomic or physiological system level.
Many disease states (e.g., lung cancer) are characterized by
abnormal changes at a subcellular or cellular level. Specimens
(e.g., cervical PAP smears, voided urine, blood, sputum, colonic
washings) can be collected from patients with suspected disease
states to diagnose those patients for the presence and type of the
disease state. Molecular pathology is the discipline that attempts
to identify and diagnostically exploit the molecular changes
associated with these cell-based diseases.
[0019] Lung cancer is an illustrative example of a disease state in
which screening of high-risk populations and at-risk individuals
can be performed using diagnostic tests (e.g., molecular diagnostic
panel assays) to detect the presence of the disease state. Also,
for patients in which lung cancer or other disease states have been
detected by these means, related diagnostic tests can be employed
to differentiate the specific disease state from related or
co-occurring disease states. For example, in this lung cancer
illustration, additional molecular diagnostic panel assays may
indicate the probabilities that the patient's disease state is
consistent with one of the following types of lung cancer: (a)
squamous cell carcinoma of the lung, (b) adenocarcinoma of the
lung, (c) large cell carcinoma of the lung, (d) small cell
carcinoma of the lung, or (e) mesothelioma. Early detection and
differentiation of cell-based disease states is a hypothesized
means to improve patient outcomes.
[0020] Cancer is a neoplastic disease the natural course of which
is fatal. Cancer cells, unlike benign tumor cells, exhibit the
properties of invasion and metastasis and are highly anaplastic.
Cancer includes the two broad categories of carcinoma and sarcoma,
but in normal usage it is often used synonymously with carcinoma.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), cancer affects
more than 10 million people each year and is responsible for in
excess of 6.2 million deaths.
[0021] Cancer is, in reality, a heterogeneous collection of
diseases that can occur in virtually any part of the body. As a
result, different treatments are not equally effective in all
cancers or even among the stages of a specific type of cancer.
Advances in diagnostics (e.g., mammography, cervical cytology, and
serum PSA testing) have, in some cases, allowed for the detection
of early-stage cancer when there are a greater number of treatment
options, and therapies tend to be more effective. In cases where a
solid tumor is small and localized, surgery alone may be sufficient
to produce a cure. However, in cases where the tumor has spread,
surgery may provide, at best, only limited benefits. In such cases
the addition of chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy may be used
to treat metastatic disease. While somewhat effective in prolonging
life, treatment of patients with metastatic disease rarely produces
a cure. Even through there may be an initial response, with time
the disease progresses and the patient ultimately dies from its
effects and/or from the toxic effects of the treatments.
[0022] While not proven, it is generally accepted that early
detection and treatment will reduce the morbidity, mortality and
cost of cancer. Early detection will, in many cases, permit
treatment to be initiated prior to metastasis. Furthermore, because
there are a greater number of treatment options, there is a higher
probability of achieving a cure or significant improvement in
long-term survival.
[0023] Developing a test that can be used to screen an "at-risk"
population has long been a goal of health practitioners. While
there have been some successes such as mammography for breast
cancer, PSA testing for prostate cancer, and the PAP smear for
cervical cancer, in most cases cancer is detected at a relatively
late stage where the patient is symptomatic and the disease is
almost always fatal. For most cancers, no test or combination of
tests has exhibited the necessary sensitivity and specificity to
permit cost-effective identification of patients with early stage
disease.
[0024] For a cancer screening program to be successful and gain
acceptance by patients, physicians, and third party payers, the
test must have implied benefit (changes the outcome), be widely
available and be able to be carried out readily within the
framework of general healthcare. The test should be relatively
noninvasive, leading to adequate compliance, have high sensitivity,
and reasonable specificity and predictive value. In addition, the
test must be available at relatively low cost.
[0025] For patients who are suspected of having cancer, the
diagnosis must be confirmed and the tumor properly staged
cytologically and clinically in order for physicians to undertake
appropriate therapeutic intervention. Some tests currently being
used in the diagnosis and staging of cancer, however, either lack
sufficient sensitivity or specificity, are too invasive, or are too
costly to justify their use as a population-based screening test.
Shown below in Tables 2 and 3, for example, are estimates of
sensitivity and specificity of lung cancer diagnostics and
estimated costs for diagnostic tests used to detect lung
cancer.
2TABLE 2 ESTIMATES OF SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY OF LUNG CANCER
DIAGNOSTICS [1] DIAGNOSTIC TEST SENSITIVITY (%) SPECIFICITY (%)
Conventional Sputum 51.0 100.0 Cytology Chest X-ray 16-85* 90-95
White Light Bronchoscopy 48.0-80.0 91.1-96.8 LIFE Bronchoscopy 72.0
86.7 Computed Tomography 63.0-99.9 80.0-61 PET Scan 88.0-92.5
83.0-93.0 *Dependent upon the stage of the disease at the time of
diagnosis
[0026]
3TABLE 3 ESTIMATED COSTS FOR DIAGNOSTIC TESTS USED IN LUNG CANCER
[1] DIAGNOSTIC TEST COST ($) Sputum Cytology 90 Chest X-ray 44
Bronchoscopy 725 Computed Tomography 378 PET Scan 800-3000 Open
Biopsy 12,847-14,121
[0027] The chest radiograph (X-ray) is often used to detect and
localize cancer lesions due to its reasonable sensitivity, high
specificity and low cost. However, small lesions are often
difficult to detect and although larger tumors are relatively easy
to visualize on a chest film, at the time of detection most have
already metastasized. Thus, chest X-rays lack the necessary
sensitivity for use as an early detection method.
[0028] Computed tomography (CT) is useful in the confirmation and
characterization of pulmonary nodules and allows the detection of
subtle abnormalities that are often missed on a standard chest
X-ray [2]. CT, and Spiral CT methods in particular, remains the
test of choice for patients who present with a prior malignant
sputum cytology result or vocal chord paralysis. CT, with its
improved sensitivity over the conventional chest film, has become
the primary tool for imaging the central airway [3]. While capable
of examining large areas, CT is subject to artifacts from cardiac
and respiratory motion although improved resolution can be achieved
through the use of iodinated contrast material.
[0029] Spiral CT is a more rapid and sensitive form of CT that has
the potential to detect early cancer lesions more reliably than
either conventional CT or X-ray. Spiral CT appears to have greatly
improved sensitivity in diagnosing early disease. However, the test
has relatively low specificity with a 20% false positive rate [4].
Spiral CT is also less sensitive in detecting the central lesions
that represent one-third of all lung cancers. Furthermore, while
the cost of the initial test is relatively low ($300), the cost of
follow-up can be high. Cytology using molecular diagnostic panel
assays offers significant promise as an adjunctive test with Spiral
CT to improve the specificity of Spiral CT testing by minimizing
false positive results through the evaluation of fine needle
aspirations (FNAs) or biopsies (FNBs) from Spiral CT-suspicious
pulmonary nodules.
[0030] Fluorescence bronchoscopy provides increased sensitivity
over conventional white light bronchoscopy, significantly improving
the detection of small lesions within the central airway [5].
However, fluorescence bronchoscopy is unable to detect peripheral
lesions, it takes a long time for bronchoscopists to examine a
patient's airways, and it is an expensive procedure. Additionally,
the procedure is moderately invasive, creating an insurmountable
barrier to its use as a population-based screening test.
[0031] Positron Emission Tomography (PET) is a highly sensitive
test that utilizes radioactive glucose to identify the presence of
cancer cells within the lung [6-8]. The cost of establishing a
testing facility is high and there is the need for a cyclotron on
site or nearby. This, coupled with the high cost of the test, has
limited the use of PET scans to staging lung cancer patients rather
than for early detection of the disease.
[0032] Although used for some time as a means of screening for lung
cancer, sputum cytology has enjoyed only limited success due to its
low sensitivity and its failure to reduce disease-specific
mortality. In conventional sputum cytology, the pathologist uses
characteristic changes in cellular morphology to identify malignant
cells and make a diagnosis of cancer. Today only 15% of patients
who are "at-risk" or who are suspected of having lung cancer
undergo sputum cytology testing, and less than 5% undergo multiple
evaluations [9]. A number of factors including tumor size,
location, degree of differentiation, cell clumping, inefficiency of
clearing mechanisms to release cells and sputum to the external
environment, and the poor stability of cells within the sputum
contribute to the overall poor performance of the test.
[0033] Cancer diagnostics has traditionally relied upon the
detection of single molecular markers. Unfortunately, cancer is a
disease state in which single markers have typically failed to
detect or differentiate many forms of the disease. Thus, probes
that recognize only a single marker have been shown to be largely
ineffective. Exhaustive searches for "magic bullet" diagnostic
tests have been underway for many decades though no universal
successful magic bullet probes have been found to date.
[0034] A major premise of this invention is that cell-based cancer
diagnostics and the screening, diagnosis for, and therapeutic
monitoring of other disease states will be significantly improved
over the state-of-the-art that uses single marker/probe analyses
rather than kits of multiple, simulaneously labeled probes. This
multiplexed analytical approach is particularly well suited for
cancer diagnostics since cancer is not a single disease.
Furthermore, this multi-factorial "panel" approach is consistent
with the heterogeneous nature of cancer, both cytologically and
clinically.
[0035] Key to the successful implementation of a panel approach to
cell-based diagnostic tests is the design and development of
optimized panels of probes that can chemically recognize the
pattern of markers that characterizes and distinguishes a variety
of disease states. This patent application describes an efficient
and unique methodology to design and develop such novel and
optimized panels.
[0036] Improved methods for specimen collection (e.g.,
point-of-care mixers for sputum cytology) and preparation (e.g.,
new cytology preservation and transportation fluids, and
liquid-based cytology preparation instruments) are under
development and becoming commercially available. In conjunction
with existing and these emerging methods, a successful
implementation of this molecular diagnostics cell-based panel assay
will lead to (a) characterization of the molecular profile of
malignant tumors and other disease states, (b) improved methods for
early cancer and other disease state detection and differentiation,
and (c) opportunities for improved clinical diagnoses, prognoses,
customized patient treatments, and therapeutic monitoring.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
[0037] The present invention is directed to a panel for detecting a
generic disease state or discriminating between specific disease
states using cell-based diagnosis. The panel comprises a plurality
of probes each of which specifically binds to a marker associated
with a generic or specific disease state, wherein the pattern of
binding of the component probes of the panel to cells in a cytology
specimen is diagnostic of the presence or specific nature of said
disease state. The present invention is also directed to a method
of forming a panel for detecting a disease state or discriminating
between disease states in a patient using cell-based diagnosis. The
method involves determining the sensitivity and specificity of
binding of probes each of which specifically binds to a member of a
library of markers associated with a disease state and selecting a
limited plurality of said probes whose pattern of binding is
diagnostic for the presence or specific nature of said disease
state. The present method is also directed to a method of detecting
a disease or discriminating between disease states comprising. The
method involves contacting a cytological sample suspected of
containing abnormal cells characteristic of a disease state with a
panel according to claim 1 and detecting a pattern of binding of
said probes that is diagnostic for the presence or specific nature
of said disease state.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURES
[0038] FIG. 1. Molecular markers that are preferable markers to be
included in a panel for identifying different histologic types of
lung cancer. The column labeled "%" indicates the percentage of
tumor specimens that express a particular marker.
[0039] FIG. 2. Potential ways in which different markers may be
used to discriminate between specific types of lung cancer. SQ
indicates squamous cell carcinoma, AD indicates adenocarcinoma, LC
indicates large cell carcinoma, SC indicates small cell carcinoma
and ME indicates mesothelioma. The numbers appearing in each cell
represent frequency of marker change in one cell type versus
another. To be included in the table, the ratio must be greater
than 2.0 or less than 0.5. A number larger than 100 generally
indicates that the second marker is not expressed. In such cases:
the denominator was set at 0.1 for the purpose of the analysis.
Finally, empty cells represent either no difference in expression
or the absence of expression data.
[0040] FIG. 3. Comparisons between H-scores for probes 7 and 15 in
control tissue and in cancerous tissue. The x-axis shows the
H-scores while the y-axis shows the percent of cases.
[0041] FIG. 4. Correlation matrix, in which correlation measures
the amount of linear association between a pair of variables. All
markers in this matrix with a correlation number of 50% or higher
are considered correlate markers.
[0042] FIG. 5. Detection panel compositions, pair-wise
discrimination panel compositions and joint discrimination panel
compositions. Panel compositions using decision tree analysis,
stepwise LR and stepwise LD are shown.
[0043] FIG. 6. Detection panel compositions wherein probe 7 was not
included as a probe. Panel compositions using decision tree
analysis, stepwise LR and stepwise LD are shown.
[0044] FIG. 7. Detection panel compositions using only commercially
preferred probes. Panel compositions using decision tree analysis,
stepwise LR and stepwise LD are shown.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
[0045] 1. Introduction
[0046] The present invention provides a noninvasive disease state
detection and discrimination method with high sensitivity and
specificity. The method involves contacting a cytological sample
suspected of containing diseased cells with a panel comprising a
plurality of agents, each of which quantitatively binds to a
disease marker, and detecting a pattern of binding of the agents.
This pattern includes the localization and density/concentration of
binding of the component probes of the panel. The present invention
also provides methods of making a panel for detecting a disease and
also for discriminating between disease states as well as panels
for detecting lung cancer in early stages and discriminating
between different types of lung cancer. Panel tests have been used
in medicine. For example, panels are used in blood serum analysis.
However, because a cytology analysis involves imaging and
localization of specific markers within individual cells and
tissues, prior to the present invention it was not apparent that
the panel approach would be effective for cytology samples.
Additionally, it was not apparent which, if any statistical
analyses could be applied to design and develop an optimized
cell-based diagnostic panel of probes.
[0047] One of the few examples of a cytology-based screening
program is the PAP Smear, which screens for cervical cancer. For
over 50 years this method has been practiced and has greatly
contributed to the fact that today, almost no woman who has regular
PAP smears dies of cervical cancer. There are drawbacks, however,
to the PAP smear screening program. For example, PAP smears are
labor intensive and are not universally accessible. The present
molecular diagnostic cell-based screening method utilizing probe
panels does not suffer from these drawbacks. The method may be
fully automated and thereby made less expensive, increasing access
to this type of testing.
[0048] The present invention provides a method, having both high
specificity and high sensitivity, for detecting a disease state and
for discriminating between disease states. The invention is
applicable to any cell-based disease state, such as cancer and
infectious diseases.
[0049] The panel is diagnostic of the presence or specific nature
of the disease state. The present invention overcomes the
limitations and drawbacks of known disease state detection methods
by enabling quick, accurate, relatively noninvasive and easy
detection and discrimination of diseased cells in a cytological
sample while keeping costs low.
[0050] A feature of the inventive method for making a panel of the
present invention is the rapidity with which the panel may be
developed.
[0051] There are several benefits to using a panel of agents in a
method for detecting a disease state, and for discriminating
between types of disease states. One benefit is that a panel of
agents has sufficient redundancy to permit detection and
characterization of disease states thereby increasing the
sensitivity and specificity of the test. Given the heterogeneous
nature of many disease states, no single agent is capable of
identifying the vast majority of cases.
[0052] An additional benefit to using a panel is that use of a
panel permits discrimination between the various types of a disease
state based on specific patterns (probe localization and
density/concentration) of expression. As the various types of a
disease may exhibit dramatic differences in their rate of
progression, response to therapy, and lethality, knowledge of the
specific type can help physicians choose the optimal therapeutic
approach.
[0053] 2. The Panel
[0054] The panel of the present invention comprises a plurality of
agents, each of which quantitatively binds to a disease marker,
wherein the pattern (localization and density/concentration) of
binding of the component agents of the panel is diagnostic of the
presence or specific nature of a disease state. Therefore, the
panel may be a detection panel or a discrimination panel. A
detection panel detects whether a generic disease state is present
in a sample of cells, while a discrimination panel discriminates
among different specific disease states in a sample of cells known
to be affected by a disease state which comprises different types
of diseases. The difference between a detection panel and a
discrimination panel lies in the specific agents that the panels
comprise. A detection panel comprises agents having a pattern of
binding that is diagnostic of the presence of a disease state,
while a discrimination panel comprises agents having a pattern of
binding that allows for determining the specific nature (i.e., each
type) of the disease state.
[0055] A panel, by definition, contains more than one member. There
are several reasons why it is beneficial to use a panel of markers
rather than just one marker alone to detect a generic disease state
or to discriminate among specific disease states. One reason is the
unlikely existence of a probe for one single marker, that is
present in all diseased cells yet not present in healthy cells,
whose behavior can be measured with a high specificity and
sensitivity to yeild an accurate test result. If such a single
probe existed for detection of a particular disease with high
sensitivity and specificity, it would already have been utilized
for clinical testing. Rather, it is the directed selection of panel
tests, each consisting of multiple probes, that together can
provide the range of detection capability to ensure clinically
adequate testing.
[0056] If one nevertheless chooses to construct a panel test
comprising one or a very few probes, then the failure of any single
marker/probe combination to perform its labeling function for any
reason (for example, diminished reactivity of the specimen cells
due to biological variability; inherent variability between lots of
probe reagents; a weak, outdated or defective processing reagent;
improper processing time or conditions for that probe) could result
in a catastrophic failure of the test to detect or discriminate the
target disease. The inclusion of multiple, and even redundant
probes in each panel test greatly enhances the probability that a
failure of any one probe will not cause a catastrophic failure of
the test.
[0057] A probe is any molecular structure or substructure that
binds to a disease marker. The term "agent" as used herein, may
also refer to a molecular structure or substructure that binds to a
disease marker. Molecular probes are homing devices used by
biologists and clinicians to detect and locate markers indicative
of the specific disease states. For example, antibodies may be
produced that bind specifically to a protein previously identified
as a marker for small cell lung cancer. This antibody probe can
then be used to localize the target protein marker in cells and
tissues of patients suspected of having the disease by using
appropriate immunochemical protocols and incubations. If the
antibody probe binds to its target marker in a stoichiometric
(i.e., quantitative) fashion and is labeled with a chromogenic or
colored "tag", then localization and quantitation of the probe and,
indirectly, its target marker may be accomplished using an optical
microscope and image cytometry technology.
[0058] The present invention contemplates detecting changes in
molecular marker expression at the DNA, RNA or protein level using
any of a number of methods available to an ordinary skilled
artisan. Exemplary probes may be a polyclonal or monoclonal
antibody or fragment thereof or a nucleic acid sequences that is
complementary to the nucleic acid sequence encoding a molecular
marker in the panel. A probe may also be a stain, such as a DNA
stain. Many of the antibodies used in the present invention are
specific to a variety of cell surface or intracellular antigens as
marker substances. The antibodies may be synthesized using
techniques generally known to those of skill in the art. For
example, after the initial raising of antibodies to the marker, the
antibodies can be sequenced and subsequently prepared by
recombinant techniques. Alternatively, antibodies may be
purchased.
[0059] In embodiments of the present invention, the probe contains
a label. A probe containing a label is often referred to herein as
a "labeled probe". The label may be any substance that can be
attached to a probe so that when the probe binds to the marker a
signal is emitted or the labeled probe can be detected by a human
observer or an analytical instrument. This label may also be
referred to as a "tag". The label may be visualized using reader
instrumentation. The term "reader instrumentation" refers to the
analytical equipment used to detect a probe. Labels envisioned by
the present invention are any labels that emit a signal and allow
for identification of a component in a sample. Preferred labels
include radioactive, fluorogenic, chromogenic or enzymatic
moieties. Therefore, possible methods of detection include, but are
not limited to, immunocytochemistry, immunohistochemistry, in situ
hybridization, fluorescent in situ hybridization, flow cytometry
and image cytometry. The signal generated by the labeled probe is
of sufficient intensity to permit detection by a medical
practitioner.
[0060] A "marker", "disease marker" or "molecular marker" is any
molecular structure or substructure that is correlated with a
disease state or pathogen. The term "antigen" may be used
interchangeably with "marker". Broadly defined, a marker is a
biological indicator that may be deliberately used by an observer
or instrument to reveal, detect, or measure the presence or
frequency and/or amount of a specific condition, event or
substance. For example, a specific and unique sequence of
nucleotide bases may be used as a genetic marker to track patterns
of genetic inheritance among individuals and through families.
Similarly, molecular markers are specific molecules, such as
proteins or protein fragments, whose presence within a cell or
tissue indicates a particular disease state. For example,
proliferating cancer cells may express novel cell-surface proteins
not found on normal cells of the same type, or may over-express
specific secretory proteins whose increased or decreased abundance
(e.g., overexpression or underexpression, respectively) can serve
as markers for a particular disease state.
[0061] Suitable markers for cytology panels are substances that are
localized in or on the nucleus, cytoplasm or cell membrane. Markers
may also be localized in organelles located in any of these
locations in the cell. Exemplary markers localized in the nucleus
include but are not limited to retinoblastoma gene product (Rb),
Cyclin A, nucleoside diphosphate kinase/nm23, telomerase, Ki-67,
Cyclin D1, proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA), p120
(proliferation-associated nucleolar antigen) and thyroid
transcription factor 1 (TTF-1). Exemplary markers localized in the
cytoplasm include but are not limited to VEGF, surfactant
apoprotein A (SP-A), nucleoside nm23, melanoma antigen-1 (MAGE-1),
Mucin 1, surfactant apoprotein B (SP-B), ER related protein p29 and
melanoma antigen-3 (MAGE-3). Exemplary markers localized in the
cell membrane include but are not limited to VEGF, thrombomodulin,
CD44v6, E-Cadherin, Mucin 1, human epithelial related antigen
(HERA), fibroblast growth factor (FGF), heptocyte growth factor
receptor (C-MET), BCL-2, N-Cadherin, epidermal growth factor
receptor (EGFR) and glucose transporter-3 (GLUT-3). An example of a
marker located in an organelle of the cytoplasm is BCL-2, located
(in part) in the mitochondrial membrane. An example of a marker
located in an organelle of the nucleus is p120
(proliferating-associated nucleolar antigen), located in the
nucleoli.
[0062] Preferred are markers where changes in expression: occur
early in disease progression, are exhibited by a majority of
diseased cells, allow for detection of in excess of 75% of a given
disease type, most preferably in excess of 90% of a given disease
type and/or allow for the discrimination between the nature of
different types of a disease state.
[0063] It is noted that the inventive panel may be referred to as a
panel of probes or a panel of markers, since the probes bind to the
markers. Therefore, the panel may comprise a number of markers or
it may comprise a number of probes that bind to specific markers.
For the sake of consistency, the present panel is referred to as a
panel of probes; however, it could also be referred to as a panel
of markers.
[0064] Markers can also include features such as
malignancy-associated changes (MACs) in the cell nucleus or
features related to the patient's family history of cancer.
Malignancy-associated changes, or MACs, are typically sub-visual
changes that occur in normal-appearing cells located in the
vicinity of cancer cells. These exceedingly subtle changes in the
cell nucleus may result biologically from changes in the nuclear
matrix and the chromatin distribution pattern. They cannot be
appreciated even by trained observers through the visual
observation of individual cells, but may be determined from
statistical analysis of cell populations using highly automated,
computerized high-speed image cytometry. Techniques for detection
of MACs are well known to those of skill in the art and are
described in more detail in: Gruner, O. C. Brit J. Surg. 3 506-522
(1916); Neiburgs, H. E. et al., Transaction, 7.sup.th Annual Mtg.
Inter. Soc. Cytol. Council 137-144 (1959); Klawe, H. Acta. Cytol.
18 30-33 (1974); Wied, G. L., et al., Analty. Quant. Cytol. 2
257-263 (1980); and Burger, G., et al., Analyt. Quant. Cytol. 3
261-271 (1981).
[0065] The present invention encompasses any marker that is
correlated with a disease state. The individual markers themselves
are mere tools of the present invention. Therefore, the invention
is not limited to specific markers. One way to classify markers is
by their functional relationship to other molecules. As used
herein, a "functionally related" marker is a component of the same
biological process or pathway as the marker in question and would
be known by a person of skill in the art to be abnormally expressed
together with the marker in question. For example, many markers are
associated with a cell proliferation pathway, such as fibrobast
growth factor (FGF), (vascular endothelial growth factor) VEGF,
CyclinA and Cyclin D1. Other markers are glucose transporters, such
as Glut-1 and Glut-3.
[0066] A person of ordinary skill in the art is well equipped to
determine a functionally related marker and may research various
markers or perform experiments in which the functional behavior of
a marker is determined. By way of non-limiting example, a marker
may be classified as a molecule involved in angiogenesis, a
transmembrane glycoprotein, a cell surface glycoprotein, a
pulmonary surfactant protein, a nuclear DNA-binding phosphoprotein,
a transmembrane Ca.sup.2+ dependent cell adhesion molecule, a
regulatory subunit of the cyclin-dependent kinases (CDK's), a
nucleoside diphosphate kinase, a ribonucleoprotein enzyme, a
nuclear protein that is expressed in proliferating normal and
neoplastic cells, a cofactor for DNA polymerase delta, a gene that
is silent in normal tissues yet when it is expressed in malignant
neoplasms is recognized by autologous, tumor-directed and specific
cytotoxic T cells (CTL's), a glycosylated secretory protein, the
gastrointestinal tract or genitourinary tract, a hydrophobic
protein of a pulmonary surfactant, a transmembrane glycoprotein, a
molecule involved in proliferation, differentiation and
angiogenesis, a proto-oncogene, a homeodomain transcription factor,
a mitochondrial membrane protein, a molecule found in nucleoli of a
rapidly proliferating cell, a glucose transporter, or an
estrogen-related heat shock protein.
[0067] Classes of biomarkers and probes include, but are not
limited to: (a) morphologic biomarkers, including DNA ploidy, MACs
and premalignant lesions; (b) genetic biomarkers including DNA
adducts, DNA mutations and apoptotic indices; (c) cell cycle
biomarkers including cellular proliferation, differentiation,
regulatory molecules and apoptosis markers, and; (d) molecular and
biochemical biomarkers including oncogenes, tumor suppressor genes,
tumor antigens, growth factors and receptors, enzymes, proteins,
prostaglandin levels and adhesion molecules.
[0068] A "disease state" may be any cell-based disease. In some
embodiments the disease state is cancer. In other embodiments, the
disease state is an infectious disease. The cancer may be any
cancer, including, but not limited to epithelial cell-based cancers
from the pulmonary, urinary, gastrointestinal, and genital tracts;
solid and/or secretory tumor-based cancers, such as sarcomas,
breast cancer, cancer of the pancreas, cancer of the liver, cancer
of the kidneys, cancer of the thyroid, and cancer of the prostate;
and blood-based cancers, such as leukemias and lymphomas. Exemplary
cancers which may be detected by the present invention are lung,
bladder, gastrointestinal, cervical, breast or prostate cancer.
Exemplary infectious diseases which may be detected are cell-based
sieases in which the infectious organism is a virus, bacteria,
protozoan, parasite, or fungus. The infectious disease, for
example, may be HIV, hepatitis, influenza, meningitis,
mononucleosis, tuberculosis and sexually transmitted diseases
(STDs), such as chlamydia, trichomonas, gonorrhea, herpes and
syphilis.
[0069] As used herein, the term "generic disease state" refers to a
disease which comprises several types of specific diseases, such as
lung cancer, sexually transmitted diseases and immune-based
diseases. Specific disease states are also referred to as
histologic types of diseases. For example, the term "lung cancer"
comprises several specific diseases, among which are squamous cell
carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, large cell carcinoma, small cell lung
cancer and mesothelioma. The term "sexually transmitted diseases"
comprises several specific diseases, among which are Gonorrhea,
Human Papilloma Virus (HPV), herpes and Syphilis. The term
"immune-based diseases" comprises several specific diseases, such
as systemic lupus erythematosus (Lupus), rheumatoid arthritis and
pernicious anemia.
[0070] As used herein, the term "high-risk population" refers to a
group of individuals who are exposed to disease-causing agents,
e.g., carcinogens, either at home or in the workplace (i.e., a
"high risk population" for lung cancer might be exposed to smoking,
passive smoking and occupational exposure). Individuals in a
"high-risk population" may also have a genetic predisposition.
[0071] The term "at-risk" refers to individuals who are asymptotic
but, because of a family history or significant exposure are at a
significant risk of developing a disease state (i.e., an individual
at risk for lung cancer with a >30 pack-year history of smoking;
"pack-year" is a measurement unit computed by multiplying the
number of packs smoked per day, times the number of years for this
exposure).
[0072] Cancer is a disease in which cells divide without control
due to, for example, altered gene expression. In the methods and
panels of the present invention, the cancer may be any malignant
growth in any organ. For example, the cancer may be lung, bladder,
gastrointestinal, cervical, breast or prostate cancer. Each cancer
may comprise a collection of diseases or histological types of
cancer. The term "histologic type" refers to cancers of different
histology. Depending on the cancer there can be one or several
histologic types. For example, lung cancer includes, but is not
limited to, squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, large cell
carcinoma, small cell carcinoma and mesothelioma. Knowledge of the
histologic type of cancer affecting a patient is very useful
because it helps the medical practitioner to localize and
characterize the disease and to determine the optimal treatment
strategy.
[0073] Infectious diseases include cell-based diseases in which the
infectious organism is a virus, bacteria, protozoan, parasite or
fungus.
[0074] Exemplary detection and discrimination panels are panels
that detect lung cancer, a general disease state, and panels that
discriminate a single lung cancer type, specific disease state,
against all other types of lung cancer and false positives. False
positives can include metastatic cancer of a different type, such
as metastasized liver, kidney or pancreatic cancer.
[0075] 3. Methods of Making a Panel
[0076] The method of making a panel for detecting a generic disease
state or discriminating between specific disease states in a
patient involves determining the sensitivity and specificity of
binding of probes to a library of markers associated with a generic
or specific disease state and selecting a plurality of said probes
whose pattern of binding (localization and density/concentration)
is diagnostic of the presence or specific nature of the disease
state. In some embodiments, optional preliminary pruning and
preparation steps are performed. The method of making a panel of
the present invention involves analyzing the pattern of binding of
probes to markers in known histologic pathology samples, i.e. gold
standards. The classifier designed on the gold standard data can
then be used to design a classifier for cytometry, especially
automated cytometry. Therefore, the set of marker probes selected
from the pathology analysis is used to prepare a new training data
set taken from a cytology sample, such as sputum, fine needle
aspirations, urine, etc. Cells shed from the specified lesions will
stain in a similar fashion to the gold standards. The method
described here eliminates the experimental error in selecting the
best features set because the integrity of the diagnosis based on
gold standard histologic pathology samples is high. Although it is,
in principle, possible to use cytology samples to produce a panel,
this is less desireable because cytology samples contain debris,
there may be deterioration of the cells in a cytology sample, and
the pathology diagnosis may be difficult to confirm clinically.
[0077] A library of markers is a group of markers. The library can
comprise any number of markers. However, in some embodiments the
number of markers in the library is limited by technical and/or
commercial practicalities, such as specimen size. For example, in
some embodiments, each specimen is tested against all of the
markers in the panel. Therefore, the number of markers must not be
larger than the number of samples into which the specimen may be
divided. Another technical practicality is time. Typically, the
library contains less than 60 markers. Preferably, the library
contains less than 50 markers. More preferably, the library
contains less than 40 markers. Most preferably the library contains
10-30 markers. It is preferable that the library of potential panel
members contain more than 10 markers so that there is opportunity
to optimize the performance of the panel. As used herein, the term
"about" means plus or minus 3 markers.
[0078] In some embodiments, a library is obtained by consulting
sources which contain information about various markers and
correlations between the markers and generic/specific disease
states. Exemplary sources include experimental results, theoretical
or predicted analyses and literary sources, such as journals,
books, catalogues and web sites. These various sources may use
histology or cytology and may rely on cytogenetics, such as in situ
hybridization; proteomics, such as immunohistochemistry; cytometry,
such as MACs or DNA ploidy; and/or cytopathology, such as
morphology. The markers may be localized anywhere in or on a cell.
For example, the markers may be localized in or on the nucleus, the
cytoplasm or the cell membrane. The marker may also be localized in
an organelle within any of the aforementioned localizations.
[0079] In some embodiments, the library may be of an unsuitable
size. Therefore, one or more pruning steps may be required prior to
initiating the basic method for making a panel. The pruning step
may involve one or several successive pruning steps. One pruning
step may involve, for example, setting an arbitrary threshold for
sensitivity and/or specificity. Therefore, any marker whose
experimental or predicted sensitivity and/or specificity falls
below the threshold may be removed from the library. Other
exemplary pruning steps, which may be performed alone or in
sequence with other pruning steps, may rely on detection technology
requirements, access constraints and irreproducibility of reported
results. With respect to detection technology requirements, it is
possible that the machinery required to detect a particular marker
is unavailable. With respect to access constraints, it is possible
that licensing restrictions make it difficult or impossible to
obtain a probe that binds to a particular marker. In some
embodiments, a due diligence study is performed on each marker.
[0080] In some embodiments, prior to beginning the basic method for
making a panel, it may be necessary to perform preparation steps.
Exemplary preparation steps include optimizing the protocols for
objective quantitative detection of the markers in the library and
collecting histology specimens. Optimization of the protocols for
objective quantitative detection of the markers is within the skill
of an ordinary artisan. For example, the necessary reagents and
supplies must be obtained, such as buffers, reagents, software and
equipment. It is possible that the concentration of reagents may
need to be adjusted. For example, if non-specific binding is
observed, a person of ordinary skill in the art may dilute the
concentration of the probe solution.
[0081] In some embodiments, the histology specimens are Gold
Standards. The term "Gold Standard" is known by a person of
ordinary skill in the art to mean that the histology and clinical
diagnosis of the specimen is known. The gold standards are often
referred to as a "training" data set. The gold standards comprise a
set of measurements, or reliable estimates, of all the features
that may contribute to the discriminating process. Such features
are collected from samples collected from a representative number
of patients with known disease states. The standard samples can be
cytology samples but this is less desireable for panel
selection.
[0082] The histology samples may be obtained by any technique known
to those of skill in the art, for example biopsy. In some
embodiments, it is necessary that the size of the specimen per
patient be large enough so that enough tissue sections can be
obtained to test each marker in the library.
[0083] In some embodiments, specimens are obtained from multiple
patients diagnosed with each specific disease state. One specimen
per patient may be obtained, or multiple specimens per patient may
be obtained. In embodiments in which multiple specimens are
obtained from individual patients, the expertise of the surgeon is
relied upon to establish that each specimen obtained from a single
patient is similar to the other specimens obtained from that
patient. Specimens are also obtained from a control group of
patients. The control group of patients may be healthy patients or
patients that are not suffering from the generic or specific
disease state that is being tested.
[0084] The first step of the basic method is determining the
sensitivity and specificity of binding of probes to a library of
markers associated with the desired disease state. In this step, a
probe that is specific for each marker in the library is applied to
a sample of the patients' specimens. Therefore, in some
embodiments, if there are, for example, 30 markers in the library,
each patient's specimen will be divided into 30 samples and each
sample will be treated with a probe that is specific for one of the
30 markers. The probe contains a label that may be visualized.
Therefore, the pattern and level of binding of the probe to the
marker can be detected. The pattern and level of binding may be
detected either quantitatively, i.e., by an analytical instrument,
or qualitatively, by a human, such as a pathologist.
[0085] In some embodiments, an objective and/or quantitative
scoring method is developed to detect the pattern and level of
binding of the probe to the markers. The scoring method may be
heuristically designed. Scoring methods are used to objectify a
subjective interpretation, for example, by a pathologist. It is
within the skill of an ordinary artisan to determine a suitable
scoring method. In some embodiments, the scoring method may
comprise categorizing features, such as the density of a marker
probe stain as: none, weak, moderate, or intense. In another
embodiment, these features may be measured with algorithms
operating on microscope slide images. An exemplary scoring method
is one in which the proportions and density are consolidated into a
single "H Score" obtained by grading the intensity as: none=0,
weak=1, moderate=2, intense=3, and the percentage cells as: 0-5%=0,
6-25%=1, 26-50%=2, 51-75%=3, >75%=4, and then multiplying the
two grades together. For example, 50% weakly stained plus 50%
moderately stained would score 6=(1.times.2)+(2.times.2)- . The "H
score" honors the late Kenneth Hirsch, one of the present
inventors.
[0086] An ordinary artisan is capable of addressing issues related
to minimizing potential biases related to pathologists and samples.
For example, randomizing may be used to minimize the chance of
having a systematic error. Blinding may be used to eliminate
experimental biases by the people conducting the experiments. For
example, in some embodiments, pathologist-to-pathologist variation
may be minimized by conducting a double blind study. As used
herein, the term "double blind study" is a well establish method
for avoiding biases, where the data collection and data analysis
are done independently. In other embodiments, sample-to-sample
variation is minimized by randomizing the samples. For example, the
samples are randomized before the pathologist analyzes them. There
is also randomization involved in the experimental protocols. In
some embodiments, each sample is analyzed by at least two
pathologists. For each patient, a reliable assessment of the
binding of the probe to the marker is obtained. In one embodiment,
this diagnosis is made by qualified pathologists, using two
pathologists per patient, to check for reliability.
[0087] A sufficient number of samples should be collected to
produce reliable designs and reliable statistical performance
estimates. It is within the skill of a normal artisan to determine
how many samples are sufficient to produce reliable designs and
reliable statistical performance estimates. Most standard
classifier design packages have methods for determining the
reliability of the performance estimates and the sample size should
be progressively increased until reliable estimates are achieved.
For example, sufficient estimates to produce reliable designs may
be achieved with 200 samples collected and 27 different features
estimated from each sample.
[0088] The second step is selecting a limited plurality of probes.
The selecting step may employ statistical analysis and/or pattern
recognition techniques. In order to perform the selecting step, the
data may be consolidated into a database. In some embodiments, the
probes may be numbered to render their method of action as unseen
during the analysis of their effectiveness and further minimize
biases. Rigorous statistical techniques are used because of the
large amount of data that is generated by this method. Any
statistical method may be used and an ordinary skilled statistician
will be able to identify which and how many methods are
appropriate.
[0089] Any number of statistical analysis and/or pattern
recognition methods may be employed. Since the structure of the
data is initially unknown, and since different classifier design
methods perform better for different structures, it is preferred to
use at least two design methods on the data. In some embodiments,
three different methodologies may be used. One of ordinary skill in
the art of statistical analysis and/or pattern recognition of data
sets would recognize from characteristics of the data set
structures that certain statistical methods would be more likely to
yield an efficient result than others, where efficient in this case
means achieving a certain level of sensitivity and specificity with
a desired number of probes. A person of ordinary skill in the art
would know that the efficiency of the statistical analysis and/or
method is data dependent.
[0090] Exemplary statistical analysis and/or pattern recognition
methods are described below:
[0091] a) A decision tree method, known as C4.5. C4.5 is public
domain software available via ftp from
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/.about.quinlan- /. This is well suited
to data that can be best classified by sequentially applying a
decision threshold to specific features in turn. This works best
with uncorrelated data; it also copes with data with similar means
provided the variances differ. The C4.5 package was used to provide
the examples shown herein.
[0092] b) Linear Discriminant Analysis. This involves finding
weighted combinations of the features that give the best separation
of the classes. These methods work well with correlated data, but
not in data with similar means and different variances. Several
statistical packages were used (SPSS, SAS and R), depending on the
performance estimates and graphical outputs required. Fisher's
linear discriminant function was used to obtain the classifier that
minimized the error rate. A canonical discriminant function was
used to compute receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves
showing the trade-off between sensitivity and selectivity as the
decision threshold is changed.
[0093] c) Logistic Regression. This is a non-linear transformation
of the linear regression model: the dependent variable is replaced
by a log odds ratio (logit). Linear regression, like discriminant
analysis, belongs to a class of statistical methods founded on
linear models. Such models are based on linear relationships
between the explanatory variables.
[0094] With a sufficient number of samples it is possible, using
the above techniques and software packages, to search for
combinations of features giving good discrimination between the
classes. Other exemplary statistical analysis and/or pattern
recognition methods are the linear Discriminant Function Method in
SPSS and Logistic Regression Method in R and SAS. SPSS is the full
product name and is available from SPSS, Inc., located at SPSS,
Inc. Headquarters, 233 S. Wacker Drive, 11th floor, Chicago, Ill.
60606 (www.spss.com). SAS is the full product name and is available
from SAS Institute, Inc., 100 SAS Campus Drive, Cary, N.C.
27513-2414, USA (www.sas.com). R is the full product name and is
available as Free Software under the terms of the Free Software
Foundation's GNU (General Public License).
[0095] http://www.r-project.org/.
[0096] In some embodiments, a correlation matrix is obtained.
Correlation measures the amount of linear association between a
pair of variables. A correlation matrix is obtained by correlating
the data obtained with one marker to data obtained with another
marker. A threshold correlation number may be set, for example, 50%
correlation. In this case, all markers with a correlation number of
50% or higher would be considered correlate markers.
[0097] In some embodiments of the present invention, user supplied
weighting factors may be used to obtain optimized panels. Weighting
may be related to any factor. For example, certain markers may be
weighted higher than others due to cost, commercial considerations,
misclassifications or error rates, prevalence of a generic disease
state in a geographic location, prevalence of a specific disease
state in a geographic location, redundancy and availability of
probes. Some factors related to cost that may encourage a user to
weight certain markers higher than others is the cost of the probe
and commercial access issues, such as license terms and conditions.
Some factors related to commercial considerations that may
encourage a user to weight certain markers higher than others are
Research and Development (R&D) time, R&D cost, R&D
risk, i.e., the probability that the probe will work, cost of final
analytical instrument, final performance and the time to market. In
a detection panel, for example, some factors related to
misclassifications or error rates that may encourage a user to
weight some markers higher than others is that it may be desirable
to minimize false negatives. In a discrimination panel, on the
other hand, it may be desirable to minimize false positives. Some
factors related to prevalence of a generic or specific disease
state in a geographic area that may encourage a user to weight some
probes higher than others are that in some geographic locations the
incidence of certain generic or specific diseases are more or less
prevalent. With respect to redundancies, in some instances it is
desirable to have redundancies in the panel. For example, if for
some reason one probe fails to be detected, due to the biological
variability of the markers in the panel, a disease state will still
be detected by the other markers. In some embodiments, markers that
are preferred redundant markers may be weighted more heavily.
[0098] The invention is flexible in being adaptable to the
availability of features where cost or supply problems may not
allow the very best combination. In one embodiment, the invention
can simply be applied to the available features to find an
alternative combination. In another embodiment, the algorithm is
used to select features that allow cost weightings to be included
in the selection process to arrive at a minimum cost solution. In
the examples, marker performance estimates for combinations
selected from all the markers collected or for only a group of
commercially preferred probes are shown. The examples also
demonstrate how the C4.5 package can be used to down weight certain
probes on the basis of their high cost. These probe combinations
may not perform as well as the optimum combination, but the
performance might be acceptable in circumstances where cost is a
significant factor.
[0099] Some of the methods used allow weightings to be applied to
the classes. This is available in C4.5 where the tree design can
optimize the cost. Also, the Discriminant Function method gives a
single parameter output which can be used to give a desired false
positive or false negative probability. A plot of these parameters
for different threshold settings is known as the receiver operating
characteristic (ROC) curve. An ROC curve shows the estimated
percentage of false positive against true positive scores for
different threshold levels of a classifier.
[0100] Given the heterogeneous nature of many generic disease
states, the panels may be constructed with a degree of redundancy
to ensure that the tests have sufficient sensitivity, specificity,
positive predictive value (Positive Predictive Value=True
Positives/(True Positives+False Positives) and negative predictive
value (Negative Predictive Value=True negatives/(False
Negatives+True Negatives) to justify their use as a
population-based screen. However, local and regional differences
may dictate specific use of the tests in different segments of the
global market, and so may significantly influence the criteria used
to construct the final panel test for a given market. While the
optimization of clinical utility is of utmost importance, local
factors including affordability (cost), technical competence,
laboratory and healthcare provider resources, workflow issues,
manpower requirements, and availability of the probes and labels
will contribute to a final, local selection of the markers used in
the panel. Well known linear discriminant function analysis is used
to include and assess all potential selection factors, by which
each local factor is represented by a term in the equation, and
each is weighted according to its locally determined significance.
In this way, a panel test optimized for use in one world region may
differ from a panel test optimized for use in a different
region.
[0101] Once detection or discrmination panels have been designed
using the above described method, the next step is to validate the
panel using known cytology samples. Prior to validation, optional
optimization steps may be performed. In some embodiments, the
method for collecting cytology samples may be improved. This
encompasses methods of obtaining the sample from the patient as
well as methods for mixing the cytology sample. In other
embodiments, the cytology presentation methods may be improved. For
example, identifying optimal fixatives (preservation fluids) or
transportation fluids.
[0102] The cytology samples used to validate the panels produced
using the gold standard histology samples are cytology samples with
known diagnoses. These samples may be collected using any method
known by those of skill in the art. For example, sputum samples can
be collected by spontaneous production, induced production and
through the use of agents that enhance sputum production. The
sample is contacted with each probe in the panel and the level and
pattern of binding of the probes is analyzed to determine the
performance of the panel. In some embodiments, it may be necessary
to further optimize the panel. For example, it may be necessary to
remove a probe from the panel. Or, it may be necessary to add an
additional probe to the panel. Additionally, it may be necessary to
replace one probe. on the panel with another probe. If a new probe
is added, this probe may be a correlate marker as determined from a
correlation matrix. Alternatively, the probe may be a functionally
similar marker. Once the panel is optimized, the panel may proceed
for further testing in clinical studies.
[0103] In other embodiments, it is not necessary to optimize the
panel. If the results with the cytology samples correlate with the
results from the histology samples, there may not be a need to
optimize the panel and the panel may proceed for further testing in
clinical studies.
[0104] 4. Methods of Use
[0105] Once a panel is obtained using the above described method,
it may be applied to cytologic samples. To illustrate the method,
cancer, especially lung cancer, will be exemplified. Similar steps
and procedures will be appliced for other disease states. It is to
be expected that cells shed from the specified lesions will stain
in a similar fashion and show in a cytologic sample, such as a fine
need aspiration, sputum, urine, in a similar fashion as in the
histologic pathology samples used to obtain the panel.
[0106] The basic method of the present invention typically involves
two steps. First, a cytological sample suspected of containing
diseased cells is contacted with a panel containing a plurality of
agents, each of which quantitatively binds to a disease marker.
Then, the level or pattern of binding of each agent to a disease
marker is detected. The results of the detection may be used to
diagnose the presence of a generic disease or to discriminate among
specific disease states. An optional preliminary step is
identifying an optimized panel of agents that will aid in the
detection of a disease or the discrimination between disease states
in a cytologic sample.
[0107] Cytology specimens may include, but are not limited to,
cellular samples collected from body fluids, such as blood, urine,
spinal fluids, and lymphatic systems; epithelial cell-based organ
systems, such as the pulmonary tract, e.g., lung sputum, urinary
tract, e.g., bladder washings, genital tract, e.g., cervical PAP
smears, and gastrointestinal tract, e.g., colonic washings; and
fine needle aspirations from solid tissue sites in organs and
systems such as the breast, pancreas, liver, kidneys, thyroid, bone
marrow, muscles, prostate, and lungs; biopsies from solid tissue
sites in organs and systems such as the breast, pancreas, liver,
kidneys, thyroid, bone marrow, muscles, prostate, and lungs; and
histology specimens, such as tissue from surgical biopsies.
[0108] An illustrative panel of agents according to the present
invention includes any number of agents that allows for accurate
detection of malignant cells in a cytological sample. Molecular
markers envisioned by the present invention may be any molecule
that aids in the detection of malignant cells. Markers may be
selected for inclusion in a panel based on several different
criteria relating to changes in level or pattern of expression of
the marker. Preferred are molecular markers where changes in
expression: occur early in tumor progression, are exhibited by a
majority of tumor cells, allow for detection of in excess of 75% of
a given tumor type, most preferably in excess of 90% of a given
tumor type and/or allow for the discrimination between histologic
types of cancer.
[0109] The first step of the basic method is the detection of
changes in the level or pattern of expression of the panel of
agents in a cytological sample. This step typically involves
contacting the cytologic sample with an agent, such as a labeled
polyclonal or monoclonal antibody or fragment thereof or a nucleic
acid probe, and observing the signal in individual cells. Detection
of cells where there is a change in signal is indicative of a
change in the level of expression of the molecular marker to which
the label probe is directed. The changes are based on an increase
or decrease in the level of expression relative to nonmalignant
cells obtained from the tissue or site being examined.
[0110] An analysis of the changes in the level or pattern of
expression of a panel of agents enables a skilled artisan to
determine, with high sensitivity and high specificity, whether
malignant cells are present in the cytologic sample. The term
"sensitivity" refers to the conditional probability that a person
having a disease will be correctly identified by a clinical test,
(the number of true positive results divided by the number of true
positive and false negative results). Therefore, if a cancer
detection method has high sensitivity, the percentage of cancers
detected is high e.g., 80%, preferably greater than 90%. The term
"specificity" refers to the conditional probability that a person
not having a disease will be correctly identified by a clinical
test, (i.e., the number of true negative results divided by the
number of true negative and false positive results). Therefore, if
a cancer detection method has high specificity, 80%, preferably
90%, more preferably 95%, the percentage of false positives the
method produces is low. A "cytologic sample" encompasses any sample
collected from a patient that contains that patient's cells.
Examples of cytological samples envisioned by the present invention
include body fluids, epithelial cell-based organ system washings,
scrapings, brushings, smears or effusions, and fine-needle
aspirates and biopsies.
[0111] Use of the markers described in this invention assumes that
it is possible to obtain an adequate cytologic sample routinely and
that the samples can be adequately preserved for subsequent
evaluation. The cytologic sample may be processed and stored in a
suitable preservative. Preferably, the cytologic sample is
collected in a vial containing the preservative. The preservative
is any molecule or combination of molecules known to maintain
cellular morphology and inhibit or block degradation of cellular
proteins and nucleic acids. To ensure proper fixation, the sample
may be mixed at the collection site at high speeds to disaggregate
the sample and/or break up obscuring material such as mucus,
thereby exposing the cells to the preservative.
[0112] Once a specimen is obtained, it is desirable to homogenize
it, using an appropriate mixing device. This permits using aliquots
for multiple purposes, including the possibility of sending
aliquots to more than one testing site, as well as preparing
multiple slides and/or multiple depositions on a slide. The initial
homogenization of the specimen and of each aliquot before use will
ensure that each individual slide will have substantially the same
distribution of cells, so that comparisons of results from one
slide to another will be meaningful.
[0113] Preparation of a specimen for analysis involves applying a
sample to a microscope slide using methods including, but not
limited to, smears, centrifugation, or deposition of a monolayer of
cells. Such methods may be manual, semi-automated, or fully
automated. The cell suspension may be aspirated depositing the
cells on a filter and a monolayer of cells transferred to a
prepared slide that may be processed for further evaluation. By
repeating this process additional slides may be prepared as
necessary. The present invention encompasses detection of one
molecular marker per slide. Detection of several molecular markers
per slide is also envisioned. Preferably, 1-6 markers are detected
per slide. In some embodiments 2 markers are detected per slide. In
other embodiments, 3 markers are detected per slide.
[0114] The present invention contemplates detecting changes in
molecular marker expression at the DNA, RNA or protein level using
any of a number of methods available to an ordinary skilled
artisan. Detection of the changes in the level or pattern of
expression of the molecular markers in a cytologic sample generally
involves contacting a cytologic sample with a polyclonal or
monoclonal antibody or fragment thereof or a nucleic acid sequence
that is complementary to the nucleic acid sequence encoding a
molecular marker in the panel, collectively "probes", and a label.
Typically, the probe and label components are operatively linked so
that when the probe reacts with the molecular marker a signal is
emitted (a "labeled probe"). Labels envisioned by the present
invention are any labels that emit or enable a signal and allow for
identification of a component in a sample. Preferred labels include
radioactive, fluorogenic, chromogenic or enzymatic moieties.
Therefore, possible methods of detection include, but are not
limited to, immunocytochemistry; proteomics, such as
immunochemistry; cytogenetics, such as in situ hybridization, and
fluorescence in situ hybridization; radiodetection, cytometry and
field effects, such as MACs and DNA ploidy (the quantitation of
stoichiometrically-stained nuclear DNA using automated computerized
cytometry) and; cytopathology, such as quantitative cytopathology
based on morphology. The signal generated by the labeled probe is
preferrably of sufficient intensity to permit detection by a
medical practitioner or technician.
[0115] Once the slide is prepared, a medical practitioner conducts
a microscopic review of the slides in order to identify cells that
exhibit a change in marker expression characteristic of a diagnosis
of cancer. The medical practitioner may use an image analysis
system and automated microscope to identify cells of interest.
Analysis of the data may make use of an information management
system and algorithms that will assist the physician in making a
definitive diagnosis and select the optimal therapeutic approach. A
medical practitioner may also examine the sample using an
instrument platform that is capable of detecting the presence of
the labeled agent.
[0116] A molecular diagnostic panel assay will result in one or
more glass microscope slides with labeled cells and/or tissue
sections. The challenge for human experts to assess these
(cyto)pathology multilabeled-cell preparations objectively and with
clinically meaningful results is a virtually insurmountable
detection and perception problem for any human being.
[0117] Computer-aided imaging systems (i.e., Photonic
Microscopes.TM.) can be developed and used to assess quantitatively
and reproducibly the amount and location of probe-labeled cells and
tissues. Such Photonic Microscopes.TM. combine robotic
slide-handling capabilities, data management systems (e.g., medical
informatics), and quantitative digital (optical and electronic)
image analysis hardware and software modules to detect and report
cell-based probe content and localization data that cannot be
obtained by human visualization with comparable sensitivity and
accuracy. These probe data can be used to characterize and
differentiate cellular samples based upon their related
characteristics and differences in their respective cell-based
markers for a variety of disease states.
[0118] The present methodology is a methodology whereby the
molecular diagnostic panels are applied to cell-based specimens and
samples, and whereby computer-aided imaging systems are
subsequently used to quantify and report the results of the
molecular diagnostic panel tests. Such imaging systems can be used
to evaluate cell-based samples in which multiple probes are used
simultaneously on a given slide-based sample, and in which the
probes can be separately analyzed, quantified, and reported because
the probes are differentiated by color on the microscope cytology
or histology slide.
[0119] The signals generated by a labeled agent in the sample may,
if they are of appropriate type and of sufficient intensity, be
detected by a human reviewer (e.g., pathologist) using a standard
microscope or a Computer-Aided Microscope [167]. The Computer-Aided
Microscope is an ergonomic, computer-interfaced microscope
workstation that integrates mouse-driven control of microscope
operation (e.g., stage movement, focusing) with computerized
automation of key functions (e.g., slide scanning patterns). A
centralized Data Management System stores, organizes and displays
relevant patient information as well as results from all specimen
screenings and pathologist reviews. An identification number that
is imprinted onto barcodes and affixed to each sample slide
uniquely identifies each sample in the database, and relates it to
the original specimen and the patient.
[0120] In a preferred embodiment the signals generated by a labeled
agent in the sample will be detected and quantitated using an
automated image analysis system, or Photonic Microscope, interfaced
to the centralized Data Management System. The Photonic Microscope
provides fully automated software control of the microscope
operations and incorporates detectors and other components
appropriate for quantitation even of signals not detectable by
human reviewers, such as very faint signals or signals from
radiolabeled moieties. The location of detected signals is stored
electronically for rapid relocation by automated instruments, and
for human review using a Computer-Aided Microscope [168].
[0121] The centralized Data Management System archives all patient
and sample data using the bar-coded identification number. The data
may be acquired asynchronously, from a multiplicity of sites, and
may be derived from multiple reviews and analyses by human
cytologists and/or automated analyzers. These data may include
results from multiple sample slides representing aliquots from a
single previously homogenized patient specimen. Part or all of the
data may be transferred to or from a hospital's Laboratory
Information System to meet reporting, archiving, billing or
regulatory requirements. A single, comprehensive report with
integrated results from panel tests and human reviews may be
generated and delivered to the physician in hardcopy, or
electronically through networked computers or the Internet.
[0122] In some embodiments, the instant method allows for
differential discrimination of different diseases, such as
different histologic types of cancers. The term "histologic type"
refers to specific disease states. Depending on the general disease
state there can be one or several histologic types. For example,
lung cancer includes, but is not limited to, squamous cell
carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, large cell carcinoma, small cell
carcinoma and mesothelioma. Knowledge of the histologic type of
cancer affecting a patient is very useful because it helps the
medical practitioner to localize and characterize the disease and
to determine the optical treatment strategy.
[0123] In order to determine the specific disease state, a panel of
markers is selected that allows for discrimination between specific
disease states. For example, within a panel of molecular markers, a
pattern of expression may be identified that is indicative of a
particular histologic type of cancer. The detection of the level of
expression of the panel of molecular markers is achieved by the
above-described methods. Preferably, a panel of 1-20 molecular
markers is employed to discriminate among the various histologic
types of lung cancer. However, most preferably, 4-7 markers are
used. Decision trees may be developed to aid in discriminating
between different histologic types based on patterns of marker
expression.
[0124] In addition to allowing for the detection of malignant cells
in a cytologic sample, the instant invention has utility in the
molecular characterization of the disease state. Such information
is often of prognostic significance and can assist the physician in
the selection of the optimal therapeutic approach for a particular
patient. In addition, the panel of markers described in this
invention may have utility in monitoring the patient for either
recurrence or to measure the efficacy of the therapy being used to
treat the disease.
[0125] By way of non-limiting example, the presence of lung cancer
may be detected by a lung cancer detection panel and the specific
type of lung cancer may be detected by a discrimination panel. If
the medical practitioner determines that malignant cells are
present in the cytologic sample, a further analysis of the
histologic type of lung cancer may be performed. The histologic
type of lung cancer encompassed by the present invention includes
but is not limited to squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma,
large cell carcinoma, small cell carcinoma and mesothelioma. FIG. 1
illustrates molecular markers that are preferable markers to be
included in a panel for identifying different histologic types of
lung cancer. The column labeled "%" indicates the percentage of
tumor specimens that express a particular marker.
[0126] In determining the various histologic types of lung cancer,
the relative level of expression of a marker is analyzed. FIG. 2
illustrates how different markers may be used to discriminate among
different histologic types of cancer. In this table, SQ indicates
squamous cell carcinoma, AD indicates adenocarcinoma, LC indicates
large cell carcinoma, SC indicates small cell carcinoma and ME
indicates mesothelioma. The numbers appearing in each cell
represent frequency of marker change in one cell type versus
another. To be included in the table, the ratio must be greater
than 2.0 or less than 0.5. A number larger than 100 generally
indicates that the second marker is not expressed. In such cases
the denominator was set at 0.1 for the purpose of the analysis.
Finally, empty cells represent either no difference in expression
or the absence of expression data.
[0127] One method for analyzing the data collected is to construct
decision trees. Schemes 1-4 are examples of decision trees that may
be constructed to enable a differential determination of a
histologic type of lung cancer using the patterns of expression.
The present invention is in no way limited to the decision trees
presented in Schemes 1-4. The relative level of expression of a
marker can be higher, lower, or the same (ND) as the level of
expression of the molecular marker in a malignant cell of a
different histologic type. Each scheme enables a distinction
between five histologic types of lung cancer through the use of the
indicated panel of molecular markers.
[0128] For example, in Scheme 1 the panel consists of HERA, MAGE-3,
Thrombomodulin and Cyclin D1. First the sample is contacted with a
labeled probe directed toward HERA. If the expression of HERA is
lower than the control, the test indicates that the histologic type
of lung cancer is mesothelioma (ME). If, however, the expression is
higher or the same as the control, the sample is contacted with a
probe directed toward MAGE-3. If the expression of MAGE-3 is lower
than the control, the sample is contacted with a labeled probe
directed toward Cyclin D1 and a determination of small cell
carcinoma (SC) or adenocarcinoma (AD) is possible. If the
expression of MAGE-3 is higher than or the same as the control, the
sample is contacted with a labeled probe directed toward
Thrombomodulin and a determination of squamous cell carcinoma (SC)
or large cell carcinoma (LC) is possible. 1
[0129] In Scheme 2 the panel consists of E-Cadherin, Pulmonary
Surfactant Band Thrombomodulin. First the sample is contacted with
a labeled probe directed toward E-Cadherin. If the expression of
E-Cadherin is lower than the control, the test indicates that the
histologic type of lung cancer is mesothelioma (ME). If, however,
the expression is higher or the same as the control, the sample is
contacted with a probe directed toward Pulmonary Surfactant B. If
the expression of Pulmonary Surfactant B is lower than the control,
the sample is contacted with a labeled probe directed toward
Thrombomodulin and a determination of squamous cell carcinoma (SQ)
or large cell carcinoma (LC) is possible. If the expression of
Pulmonary Surfactant B is higher than or the same as the control,
the sample is contacted with a labeled probe directed toward CD44v6
and a determination of adenocarcinoma (AD) and small cell carcinoma
(SC) is possible. (See Schemes 3 and 4 for more examples of
decision trees). 2 3 4
[0130] A preferred method involves using panels of molecular
markers where differences in the pattern of expression permits the
discrimination between the various histologic type of lung
cancer.
[0131] Many different decision trees may be constructed to analyze
the patterns of marker expression. This information may be used by
physicians or other health are providers to make patient management
decisions and select an optimal treatment strategy.
[0132] 5. Reporting of Results of Panel Analysis
[0133] The results from the panel analysis may be reported in
several ways. For example, the results may be reported as a simple
"yes or no" result. Alternatively, the result may be reported as a
probability that the test results are correct. For example, the
results from a detection panel study may indicate whether a patient
has a generic disease state or not. As the panel also reports the
specificity and sensitivity, the results may also be reported as
the probability that the patient has a generic disease state. The
results from a discrimination panel analysis will discriminate
among specific disease states. The results may be reported as a
"yes or no" with respect to whether the specific disease state is
present. Alternatively, the results may be reported as a
probability that a specific disease state is present. It is also
possible to perform several discrimination panel analyses on a
specimen from one patient and report a profile of the probabilities
that the disease state present is a specific disease state with
respect to the other possibilities. The other possibilities may
also include false positives.
[0134] In embodiments in which a profile of the probabilities of
each specific disease state being present is produced, there are
several possible outcomes. For example, it is possible that all of
the probabilities will be a very small probability. In this
instance, it is possible that the doctor will conclude that the
patient's specimen diagnosis is a false positive. It is also
possible that all of the probabilities will be low except for one
that is above 80-90%. In this instance, it is possible that the
doctor will conclude that the test verifies that the patient has
the specific disease state that indicated the high probability. It
is also possible that most of the probabilities will be low, but
similarly high probabilities are reported for two specific disease
states. In this case, a doctor may recommend more extensive panel
testing to ensure that the correct disease state is identified.
Another possibility is that all of the probabilities reported will
be low, with one being slightly higher than the rest but not high
enough to be in the 80-90% range. In this case, a doctor may
recommend more extensive panel testing to ensure that the correct
disease state is identified and/or to rule out metastatic cancer
from a remote primary tumor of a different cancer type.
[0135] The following Example is illustrative of the method of the
invention for selecting a disease detection panel, disease
discrimination panels, validation of the panels and use of the
panels in the clinic to screen for a disease and to discriminate
among different subtypes of the disease. Lung cancer was selected
for this illustrative example, in part because of its importance to
world health, but it will be appreciated that similar procedures
will apply to other types of cancer, as well as to infectious,
degenerative and autoimmune diseases, according to the foregoing
general disclosure.
ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE
[0136] The present method was used to develop lung cancer detection
panels as well as single lung cancer type specific discrimination
panels. Lung cancer is an extremely complex collection of diseases
that can be segregated into two main classes. Non-small cell lung
carcinoma (NSCLC) that accounts for approximately 70 to 80% of all
lung cancers can be further subdivided into three main histologic
types including squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, and large
cell carcinoma. The remaining 20 to 30% of lung cancer patients
present with small cell lung carcinoma (SCLC). In addition,
malignant mesothelioma of the pleural space, can develop in
individuals exposed to asbestos and will often spread widely
invading other thoracic structures. Different forms of lung cancer
tend to localize in different regions of the lung, have different
prognoses, and respond differently to various forms of therapy.
[0137] According to the latest statistics from the World Health
Organization (Globocan 2000), lung cancer has become the most
common fatal malignancy in both men and women with an estimated
1.24 million new cases and 1.1 million deaths each year. In the
U.S. alone, the National Cancer Institute reports that there are
approximately 186,000 new cases of lung cancer and each year
162,000 people die of the disease, accounting for 25% of all
cancer-related deaths. In the U.S., overall I-year survival for
patients with lung cancer is 40%, however, only 14% live 5 years.
In other parts of the world, 5-year survival is significantly lower
(5% in the UK). The high mortality of lung cancer can be attributed
to the fact that most patients (85%) are diagnosed with advanced
disease when treatment options are limited and the disease is
likely to have metastasized. In these patients, 5-year survival is
between 2-30% depending of the stage at the time of diagnosis. This
is in sharp contrast to cases where patients are diagnosed early
and 5-year survival is greater than 75%. While it is true that a
number of new chemotherapeutic agents have been introduced into
clinical practice for the treatment of advanced lung cancer, to
date, none have yielded a significant improvement in long-term
survival. Even though patients with early stage disease can
presumably be cured by surgery, they remain at significant risk, as
there is a high probability that they will develop a second
malignancy. Thus, for the lung cancer patient, early detection and
treatment followed by aggressive monitoring provides the best
chance of achieving significant improvements in long-term survival
along with a reduction in morbidity and cost.
[0138] At the present time, a patient is suspected of having lung
cancer either because of a suspicious lesion on X-ray or because
the patient becomes symptomatic. As a result, most patients are
diagnosed with relatively late stage disease. In addition, because
most methods lack sufficient sensitivity with respect to the
detection of early stage disease, the current policy of the U.S.
National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health,
recommends against screening for lung cancer even in populations of
patients who are at significant risk. In this embodiment of the
present invention, however, sputum cytology is employed to provide
a relatively noninvasive, more effective and cost-effective means
for the early detection of lung cancer.
[0139] The specificity of sputum cytology is relatively high.
Recent studies have indicated that experienced cytotechnologists
are able to recognize malignant or severely dysplastic cells with a
high degree of accuracy and reliability [10]. While the detection
rate can be as high as 80 to 90% when samples are collected from
patients with a relatively advanced disease [11,12], overall,
sputum cytology has a sensitivity of only 30-40% [13,14]. The low
sensitivity of sputum cytology is particularly important given that
obtaining and preparing the specimen can be relatively expensive.
Furthermore, failing to detect a malignancy can significantly delay
treatment thereby reducing the chance of achieving a cure.
[0140] The selection of an "at-risk" population can also influence
the value of sputum cytology as a screening tool. Individuals who
are at significant risk include those with a prior diagnosis of
lung cancer, long-term smokers or former smokers (>30 pack
years) and individuals with long-term exposure to asbestos or
pulmonary carcinogens. People with a genetic predisposition or
familial history are also included in an "at-risk" population. Such
individuals are likely to benefit from testing. While the inclusion
of individuals with lower risk may result in an increase in the
absolute number of cases detected, it would be hard to justify the
substantial increase in healthcare costs.
[0141] Other factors that contribute to the relatively poor
performance of conventional sputum cytology include the location of
the lesion, tumor size, histologic type, and the quality of the
sample. Squamous-cell carcinoma accounts for 31% of all primary
pulmonary neoplasms. Most of these tumors arise from segmental
bronchi and extend to the proximal lobar and distal subsegmental
branches [15]. For this reason, sputum cytology is reasonably
effective (79%) in detecting these lesions. Currently, squamous
cell carcinoma is viewed as the only type of lung cancer that is
amenable to cytologic detection in an in situ and radiologically
occult stage [15], as sloughed cells are more likely to be
available for evaluation. In one large study where patients were
followed with both chest X-ray and sputum cytology, 23% of all lung
cancers were detected by cytology alone, suggesting that the tumors
were early stage and radiologically occult [16]. In another study
[17], sputum cytology detected 76% of patients with radiologically
occult tumors.
[0142] In the case of adenocarcinoma, 70% of tumors occur in the
periphery of the lung making it less likely that malignant cells
will be found in a conventional sputum specimen. For this reason,
adenocarcinomas are rarely detected by sputum cytology (45%)
[12,18,19], an important consideration, since the incidence of
adenocarcinoma appears to be increasing, particularly in women
[20-22].
[0143] Tumor size can also affect the likelihood of achieving a
correct diagnosis, a factor that is particularly important when
considering a screening test for the detection of disease in
asymptomatic individuals. While there is only a 50% chance that
tumors <24 mm will be read as a true positive, the probability
of detecting a larger lesion is in excess of 84% [12].
[0144] Recent reports also indicate that the cellularity of the
specimen will affect the sensitivity of sputum cytology [14,23]. In
general, patients with squamous cell carcinoma produce specimens
with significant numbers of tumor cells, thereby increasing the
likelihood of a correct diagnosis [14,23]. For patients with
adenocarcinoma, the presence of tumor cells in a sputum specimen is
reported to be less than 10% in 95% of the specimens and less than
2% in 75% of specimens, making the diagnosis significantly more
difficult.
[0145] The degree of differentiation can also influence the ability
of a pathologist to detect malignant cells, particularly in cases
of adenocarcinoma. Well-differentiated tumor cells frequently
resemble nonneoplastic respiratory epithelial cells. In the case of
small-cell lung carcinoma, sputum samples often contain nests of
loosely aggregated cells that have a distinct appearance. However,
techniques currently used to process sputum samples tend to
disaggregate the cells, making a diagnosis more difficult.
[0146] Sample quality is another factor that can contribute to the
low sensitivity of sputum cytology. Recent reports suggest that it
is possible to obtain adequate samples from 70-85% of subjects.
However, achieving this measure of success often requires that
patients provide multiple specimens [13]. This procedure is
inconvenient, time-consuming and costly. Patient compliance is also
generally low, as patients are frequently asked to collect over
several days [13]. Of equal importance is the observation that
former smokers, while at significant risk for developing lung
cancer, often fail to produce an adequate specimen. Sample
preservation and processing is another critical factor that can
affect the value of sputum cytology as a diagnostic test.
[0147] Lastly, even if adequate samples could be obtained and
optimally prepared, cytotechnologists generally still have to
review 2-4 slides per specimen, each typically taking up to four
minutes [24]. Given the low sensitivity, high technical complexity
and labor intensity of conventional sputum cytology, it is not
surprising that this test has been almost universally rejected as a
population-based screen for the early detection of lung cancer
[25].
[0148] Even if these technical issues were resolved, the low
sensitivity of sputum cytology remains a significant problem. The
high incidence of false negative results can significantly delay
the patient receiving potentially curative therapy. While it may be
possible to develop tests with greater sensitivity, such
improvements must not come at the cost of specificity. An increase
in the number of false positive results would subject patients to
unnecessary, often invasive and costly, follow-up and would have a
negative impact on the patient's quality of life. The present
invention overcomes many of the limitations associated with
previous methods of early cancer detection, including those related
to the use of sputum cytology for the early detection of lung
cancer.
[0149] Lung cancer is a heterogeneous collection of diseases. To
ensure that a test has the necessary level of sensitivity and
specificity to justify its use as a population based screen, the
present invention envisions using, for example, a library of 10 to
30 cellular markers to develop panels. Selection of the library of
this invention was based on a review and reanalysis of the relevant
scientific literature where, in most cases, marker expression was
measured in biopsy specimens taken from patients with lung cancer
in an attempt to link expression with prognosis.
[0150] For example, a preferred panel for early detection,
characterization, and/or monitoring of lung cancer in a patient's
sputum may include molecular markers for which a change in
expression occurred in at least 75% of tumor specimens. An
exemplary panel includes markers selected from VEGF,
Thrombomodulin, CD44v6, SP-A, Rb, E-Cadherin, cyclin A, nm23,
telomerase, Ki-67, cyclin D1, PCNA, MAGE-1, Mucin, SP-B, HERA,
FGF-2, C-MET, thyroid transcription factor, Bcl-2, N-Cadherin,
EGFR, Glut-1, ER-related (p29), MAGE-3 and Glut-3. A most preferred
panel includes molecular markers for which a change in expression
occurs in more than 85% of tumor specimens. An exemplary panel
includes molecular markers selected from Glut1, HERA, Muc-1,
Telomerase, VEGF, HGF, FGF, E-cadherin, Cyclin A, EGF Receptor,
Bcl-2, Cyclin D1 and N-cadherin. With the exception of Rb and
E-cadherin, a diagnosis of lung cancer is associated with an
increase in marker expression. A brief description of the library
of probes/markers utilized in the present example is provided below
in Table 4. It is noted that the numbering of the antibodies in the
table below is consistent with the number of the
antibodies/probes/marker- s throughout this
4TABLE 4 Probes and Markers for Lung Panel No. Marker Abbreviation
Full Name of Antibody Probe Target Marker Name/Description 1 VEGF
anti-VEGF Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor protein 2
Thrombomodulin anti-Thrombomodulin trams-membrane glycoprotein 3
CD44v6 anti-CD44v6 cell surface glycoprotein (CD44 variant 6 gene):
cell adhesion molecule 4 SP-A anti-Surfactant Apoprotein A
pulmonary surfactant apoprotein 5 Retinoblastoma
anti-Retinoblastoma gene product phosphoprotein 6 E-Cadherin
anti-E-Cadherin transmembrane Ca.sup.++ dependent cell adhesion
molecule 7 Cyclin A anti-Cyclin A protein subunit of
cyclin-dependent kinase enzymes: for cell cycle regulation 8 nm23
anti-nm23 2 closely related proteins produced by nm23-H1 and - H2
genes 9 Telomerase anti-Telomerase ribonucleoprotein enzyme for
chromosome repair 10 Mib-1 (Ki-67) anti-Ki-67 nuclear protein:
expressed in proliferating cells 11 Cyclin D1 anti-Cyclin D1
protein subunit of cyclin-dependent kinase enzymes: for cell cycle
regulation 12 PCNA anti-Proliferating Cell Nuclear Antigen protein
cofactor for DNA polymerase delta 13 MAGE-1
anti-Melanoma-Associated Antigen 1 cell recognition protein coded
by MAGE family of genes 14 Mucin 1 (MUC-1) anti-Mucin 1 cell
surface and secreted mucin (highly glycosylated protein) 15 SP-B
anti-mature Surfactant Apoprotein B pulmonary surfactant apoprotein
16 HERA anti-Human Epithelial Related Antigen cell surface antigen
(transmembrane protein) (MOC-31) 17 FGF-2 (basic FGF)
anti-Fibroblast Growth Factor protein that binds to cell surface 18
c-MET anti-c-MET trans-membrane receptor protein for Hepatocyte
Growth Factor (HGF) 19 Thyroid Transcription anti-TTF-1 regulator
of thyroid-specific genes: also expressed in lung Factor 1 20 BCL-2
anti-BCL2 intracellular membrane-bound protein encoded by BCL2 gene
21 P120 anti-p120 Proliferation-Associated Nucleolar Antigen
protein 22 N-Cadherin anti-N-Cadherin transmembrane Ca.sup.++
dependent cell adhesion molecule 23 EGFR anti-EGFR Epidermal Growth
Factor Receptor: transmembrane glycoprotein 24 Glut 1 anti-Glut 1
Glucose-transporting, transmembrane Glut family of proteins 25
ER-related (p29) anti-ER-related P29: anti-HSP 27 Estrogen
Receptor-related p29 protein: Heat Shock protein 27 26 Mage 3
anti-Melanoma-Associated Antigen 3 cell recognition protein coded
by MAGE family of genes 27 Glut 3 anti-Glut 3 Glucose-transporting,
transmembrane Glut family of proteins 28 PCNA (higher dilution)
anti-Proliferating Cell Nuclear Antigen protein cofactor for DNA
polymerase delta
[0151] Each molecular marker in the preferred panel is described
below. Table 5, reciting the percentage of expression of the
markers in tissue for each type of lung cancer is provided at the
end of this section.
[0152] Glucose Transporter Proteins (Glut 1 and Glut 3) [26-28]
[0153] Glucose Transporter-1 (Glut 1) and Glucose Transporter-3
(Glut-3) are a ubiquitously expressed high affinity glucose
transporter. Tumor cells often display higher rates of respiration,
glucose uptake, and glucose metabolism than do normal cells, and
the elevated uptake of glucose in tumor cells is thought to be
mediated by glucose transporters. Overexpression of certain types
of GLUT isoforms has been reported in lung cancer. The cellular
localization of Glut 1 is in the cell membrane. GLUT-1 and GLUT-3
are disease markers useful for detection of a disease state.
[0154] Malignant cells exhibit an increase in glucose uptake that
appears to be mediated by a family of glucose transporter proteins
(Gluts). Oncogenes and growth factors appear to regulate the
expression of these proteins as well as their activities. Members
of the Glut family of proteins exhibit different patterns of
distribution in various human tissues and rapid proliferation is
often associated with their overexpression. Recent evidence
suggests that Glut1 is expressed by a large percentage of NSCLC and
by a majority of SCLC.
[0155] While the expression of Glut 3 is relatively low in both
NSCLC and SCLC a significant percentage (39.5%) of large cell
carcinomas express the protein. In stage I tumors, 83% express
Glut1 at some level with 75-100% of cells staining in 25% of cases.
These data would suggest that Glut1 overexpression is a relatively
early event in tumor progression. Glut1 immunoreactivity has also
been detected in >90% of stage II and IIIA cancers. There also
appears to be an inverse correlation between Glut1 and Glut3
immunoreactivity and tumor differentiation. Tumors expressing high
levels of Glut1 appear to be particularly aggressive that are
associate with a poor prognosis. In cases were tumors were negative
for the proteins better survival was observed.
[0156] Human Epithelial Related Antigen (HERA) [29,30]
[0157] HERA is a transmembrane glycoprotein with an, as yet,
unknown function. HERA is present on most normal and malignant
epithelia. Recent reports suggest that the while HERA expression is
high in all histologic types of NSCLC making it useful as a
detection marker. In contrast HERA expression is absent in
mesothelioma and thus suggesting would have utility as a
discrimination marker. The cellular localization of HERA is the
cell surface.
[0158] Basic Fibroblast Growth Factor (FGF) [31-34]
[0159] Basic Fibroblast Growth Factor (FGF) is a polypeptide growth
factor with a high affinity for heparin and other
glycosaminoglycans. In cancer, FGF functions as a potent mitogen,
plays a role in angiogenesis, differentiation, and proliferation,
and is involved in tumor progression and metastasis. FGF
overexpression frequently occurs in both SCLC and squamous cell
carcinoma. In many cases (62%), the cells also express the FGF
receptor suggesting the presence of an autocrine loop. Forty-eight
percent of Stage 1 tumors overexpress FGF. The frequency of FGF in
Stage II lung cancer is 84%. Expression of either the growth factor
or its receptor was associated with the poor prognosis. Five-year
survival rates for those patients with stage I disease were 73% for
those expressing FGF versus 80% for those who were FGF negative.
The cellular localization is the cell membrane.
[0160] Telomerase [35-42]
[0161] Telomerase is a ribonucleoprotein enzyme that extends and
maintains telomeres of eukaryotic chromosomes. It consists of a
catalytic protein subunit with reverse transcriptase activity and
an RNA subunit with reverse transcriptase activity and an RNA
subunit that serves as the template for telomere extension. Cells
that do not express telomerase have successively-shortened
telomeres with each cell division, which ultimately leads to
chromosomal instability, aging and cell death. The cellular
localization of telomerase is nuclear.
[0162] Expression of telomerase appears to occur in immortalized
cells and enzyme activity is a common feature of the malignant
phenotype. Approximately 80-94% of lung tumors exhibit high levels
of telomerase activity. In addition, 71% of hyperplasia, 80% of
metaplasia, and 82% of dysplasia express enzyme activity. All the
carcinoma in situ (CIS) specimens exhibit enzyme activity. The low
levels of expression in premaligant tissues is probably related to
the fact that only a small percentage of cells (5 and 20%) in the
sample express enzyme activity. This is in contrast to tumors where
20-60% of cells may express enzyme activity. Based on a limited
number of samples it would appear expression of telomerase activity
is also common in SCLC.
[0163] Proliferating Cell Nuclear Antigen (PCNA) [43-51]
[0164] PCNA functions as a cofactor for DNA polymerase delta. PCNA
is expressed in both S phase of the cell cycle and during periods
of DNA synthesis associated with DNA repair. PCNA is expressed in
proliferating cells in a wide range of normal and malignant
tissues. The cellular localization of PCNA is nuclear.
[0165] Expression of PCNA is a common feature of rapidly dividing
cells and is detected in 98% of tumors. Immunohistochemical
staining is nuclear with moderate to intense staining detected in
83% of NSCLC. Intense PCNA staining was observed in 51% of
p53-negative tumors. However, when both PCNA (>50% of cells
staining) and p53 are overexpressed (>10% of cells stained) the
prognosis tends to be poorer with a shorter time to progression.
Although frequently detected in all stages of lung cancer, intense
staining for PCNA is more common in metastatic disease. Thirty-one
percent of CIS also overexpress PCNA.
[0166] CD44 [51-58]
[0167] CD44v6 is a cell surface glycoprotein that acts as a
cellular adhesion molecule. It is expressed on a wide range of
normal and malignant cells in epithelial, mesothelial and
hematopoietic tissues. The expression of specific CD44 splice
variants has been shown to be associated with metastasis and poor
prognosis in certain human malignancies. It is expected to be used
for detection and discrimination between squamous cell carcinoma
and adenocarcinoma. CD44 is a cell adhesion molecule that appears
to play a role in tumor invasion and metastasis. Alternative
splicing results in the expression of several variant isoforms.
CD44 expression is generally lacking in SCLC and is variably
expressed in NSCLC. Highest levels of expression occur in squamous
cell carcinoma, thus making it valuable in discriminating between
tumor types. In non-neoplastic tissue, CD44 staining is observed in
bronchial epithelial cells, macrophages, lymphocytes, and alveolar
pneumocytes. There was no significant correlation between CD44
expression and tumor stage, recurrence, or survival particularly
when overexpression occurs in early stage disease. In metastatic
lesions 100% of squamous cell carcinoma and 75% of adenocarcinoma
showed strong CD44v6 positivity. These data would tend to indicate
that changes in CD44 expression occur relatively late in tumor
progression that could limit its value as an early detection
marker. Recent findings suggest that the CD44v8-10 variant is
expressed by a majority of NSCLC making it a possible candidate
marker.
[0168] Cyclin A [59-62]
[0169] Cyclin A is a regulatory subunit of the cyclin-dependent
kinases (CDK's) which control the transition points at specific
phases of the cell cycle. It is detectable in S-phase and during
progression into G2 phase. The cellular localization of Cyclin A is
nuclear.
[0170] Protein complexes consisting of cyclins and cyclin-dependent
kinases function to regulate cell cycle progression. Changes in
cyclin expression are associated with genetic alterations affecting
the CCDN1 gene. While the cyclins act as regulatory molecules, the
cyclin-dependent kinases function as catalytic subunits activating
and inactivating Rb.
[0171] Immunohistochemical analysis has revealed that the
overexpression of the cyclins is associated with an increase in
cellular proliferation as indicated by a high Ki-67 labeling index.
Cyclin overexpression occurs in 75% of NSCLC and appears to occur
relatively early in tumor progression. Recent reports indicate that
66.7% of stage I/II and 70.9% of stage III tumors overexpress
Cyclin A. Nuclear staining is common in poorly differentiated
tumors. Expression of cyclin A is often associated with a decrease
in mean survival time and a tendency towards the development of
drug resistance. However, increased expression has also been
associated with a greater response to doxorubicin.
[0172] Cyclin D1 [63-73]
[0173] Cyclin D1, as with Cylcin A, is a regulatory subunit of the
cyclin-dependent kinases (CDK's) which control the transition
points at specific phases of the cell cycle. Cyclin D1 regulates
the entry of cells into S phase of the cell cycle. This gene is
frequently amplified and/or its expression deregulated in a wide
range of human malignancies. The cellular localization of Cyclin D1
is nuclear.
[0174] Like Cyclin A, cyclin D1 functions to regulate cell cycle
progression. Staining of cyclin D1 is predominately cytoplasmic and
independent of histologic type. Reports suggest that cyclin D1
overexpression occurs in 40-70% of NSCLC and 80% of SCLC. Cyclin
D1, staining was observed in 37.9% of stage I, 60% stage II, and
57.9% of stage III tumors. Cyclin D1 expression has also been seen
in dysplastic and hyperplastic tissue providing evidence that these
changes occur relatively early in tumor progression. Patients who
overexpress cyclin D1 exhibit shorter mean survival time and lower
five-year survival rate.
[0175] Hepatocyte Growth Factor Receptor (C-MET) [74-77]
[0176] C-MET is a proto-oncogene that encodes a transmembrane
receptor tyrosine kinase for HGF. HGF is a mitogen for hepatocytes
and endothelial cells, and exerts pleitrophic activity on several
cell types of epithelial origin. The cellular localization of C-MET
is the cell surface.
[0177] Hepatocyte growth factor/scatter factor (HGF/SF) stimulates
a broad spectrum of epithelial cells causing them to proliferate,
migrate, and carry out complex differentiation programs including
angiogenesis. HGF/SF binds to a receptor encoded by the c-MET
oncogene. While both normal and malignant tissues express the HGF
receptor, expression of HGF/SF appears to be limited to malignant
tissue.
[0178] While the human lung generally expresses low levels of
HGF/SF, expression increases markedly in NSCLC. Using Western blot
analysis, 88.5% of lung cancers exhibited an increase in the
protein expression. All histologic types of tumors expressed the
protein at increased concentrations. While increased levels of
protein occur in all stages of the disease, recent evidence
suggests that in addition to the cancer cells, stromal cells and/or
inflammatory cells may be responsible for the production of the
growth factor.
[0179] Mucin--MUC-1 [78-82]
[0180] Mucin-1 comes from a family of highly glycosylated secretory
proteins which comprise the major protein constituents of the
mucous gel which coats and protects the tracheobronchial tree,
gastrointestinal tract and genitourinary tract. Mucin-1 is
atypically expressed in epithelial tumors. The cellular
localization of Mucin-1 is cytoplasm and the cell surface.
[0181] Mucins are a family of high molecular weight glycoproteins
that are synthesized by a variety of secretory epithelial cells
that are either membrane bound or secreted. Within the respiratory
tract, these proteins contribute to the mucus gel that coats and
protects that tracheobronchial tree. Changes in mucin expression
commonly occur in conjunction with malignant transformation
including lung cancer. Evidence exists suggesting at these changes
may contribute to alterations in cell growth regulation,
recognition by the immune system, and the metastatic potential of
the tumor.
[0182] Although normal lung tissue expresses MUC-1, significantly
higher levels of expression are found in lung cancer with highest
levels occurring in adenocarcinoma. Staining appears to occur
independently of stage and is more common in smokers than in former
smokers or nonsmokers. Some premalignant lesions also exhibit
increased MUC-1 expression.
[0183] Thyroid Transcription Factor-1 (TTF-1) [83,84]
[0184] TTF-1 belongs to a family of homeodomain transcription
factors that activate thyroid-specific and pulmonary-specific
differentiation genes. The cellular localization of TTF-1 is
nuclear.
[0185] TTF-1 is a protein originally found to mediate the
transcription of thyrogtobulin. Recently, TTF-1 expression was also
found in the diencephalon and brohchioloalveolar epithelium. Within
the lung TTF-1 functions as a transcription factor regulating the
synthesis of surfactant proteins and clara secretory protein.
Overexpression of TTF-1 occurs in a large proportion of lung
adenocarcinomas and can aid in distinguishing between primary lung
cancer and cancers that metastasize to the lung. Adenocarcinomas
that express TTF-1 and are cytokeratin 7 positive and cytokeratin
20 negative can be detected with 95% sensitivity.
[0186] Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) [33,61,85-89]
[0187] VEGF plays an important role in angiogenesis, which promotes
tumor progression and metastasis. There are multiple forms of VEGF;
the two smaller isoforms are secreted proteins and act as
diffusible agents, whereas the larger two remain cell associated.
The cellular localization of VEGF is cytoplasmic, cell surface, and
extracellular matrix.
[0188] Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) is an important
angiogenesis factor and endothelial cell-specific mitogen.
Angiogenesis is an important process in the latter stages of
carcinogenesis, tumor progression and is particularly important in
the development of distant metastasis. VEGF binds to a specific
receptor Flt that is often present in the tumors expressing the
growth factor suggesting the presence of an autocrine loop.
[0189] Immunohistochemical analysis reveals that cells expressing
VEGF exhibit a pattern of staining that is diffuse and cytoplasmic.
While not expressed by nonneoplastic cells, VEGF is present in the
majority of NSCLC and in a smaller percentage of SCLC. Several
reports have shown high levels of VEGF in early stage lung
cancer.
[0190] Expression of VEGF has been associated with an increased
frequency of metastasis. Studies have shown that VEGF expression is
indicative of a poor prognosis and shorter disease-free interval in
adenocarcinoma but not in squamous cell carcinoma. Three year and
five year survival rates in the group expressing high levels of
VEGF were 50% and 16.7% as compared to 90.9 and 77.9% respectively
for the low VEGF group.
[0191] Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) [90-104]
[0192] Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) is a transmembrane
glycoprotein, which can bind and become activated by various
ligands. Binding initiates a chain of events that result in DNA
synthesis, cell proliferation, and cell differentiation. EGFR has
been demonstrated in a broad spectrum of normal tissues, and EGFR
overexpression is found in a variety of neoplasms. Increased
expression has been observed in adenocarcinomas of the lung and
large cell carcinomas but not in small cell lung carcinomas. The
cellular localization of EGFR is the cell surface.
[0193] The EGFR plays an important role in cell growth and
differentiation. The EGFR is uniformly present in the basal cell
layer but not in more the superficial layers of histologically
normal bronchial epithelium. With this exception, there is no
consistent staining of normal tissue. Recent evidence suggests that
the overexpression of the EGF receptor may not be an absolute
requirement for the development of invasive lung cancer. However,
it appear that in cases where EGFR overexpression occurs it is a
relatively early event with greater staining intensity in more
advanced disease.
[0194] For patients with invasive carcinomas, 50-77% of tumors
stain for EGF. Overexpression of the EGFR is more common in
squamous cell carcinoma than in adenocarcinoma and common in SCLC.
Highest levels of EGFR occur in conjunction with late stage and
metastatic disease that have approximately twice the concentration
of EGFR as that seen in stage I/II tumors. Estimates suggest that
the level of the EGFR observed in stage I tumors is approximately
twice that seen in normal tissue. In addition, 48% of bronchial
lesions also show EGFR staining including, metaplasia, atypia,
dysplasia, and CIS. In the "normal" bronchial mucosa, of these same
cancer patients, overexpression of the EGFR was observed in 39% of
cases but was absent in the bronchial epithelium of the non-cancer.
In addition, overexpression of the EGFR occurs more frequently in
the tumors of smokers than in nonsmokers, particularly in the case
of squamous cell carcinoma.
[0195] While several studies have suggested that overexpression of
the EGFR is associated with the poor prognosis, other studies have
failed to make this correlation.
[0196] Nucleoside Diphosphate Kinase/nm23 [105-111]
[0197] Nucleoside diphosphate kinase (NDP kinase)/nm23 is a
nucleoside diphosphate kinase. Tumor cells with high metastatic
potential often lack or express only a low amount of nm23 protein,
hence the nm23 protein has been described as a metastasis
suppressor protein. The cellular localization of nm23 is nuclear
and cytoplasmic.
[0198] Expression of nm23/nucleoside diphosphate/kinase A (nm23) is
a marker of tumor progression where there is an inverse
relationship between expression and metastatic potential. In cases
where stage I tumors overexpress nm23, no evidence of metastasis
was seen during an average follow-up period of 35 months.
Immunohistochemical analysis reveals staining that is diffuse,
cytoplasmic and generally limited to malignant cells. Alveolar
macrophages also express the protein. Given that high levels of
expression are associated with a low metastatic potential, there is
currently no explanation as to why normal epithelial cells do not
express nm23.
[0199] Intense staining has been observed in high percentage of
NSCLC particularly large cell lung cancer and 74% of SCLC
suggesting that this protein plays an important role in tumor
progression. With the exception of squamous cell carcinoma,
staining intensity tends to increase with stage. Based on the
available evidence, it would appear that nm23 is a prognostic
factor in both SCLC and NSCLC.
[0200] Bcl-2 [101,112-125]
[0201] Bcl-2 is a mitochondrial membrane protein that plays a
central role in the inhibition of apoptosis. Overexpression of
bcl-2 is a common feature of cells in which programmed cell death
has been arrested. The cellular localization of Bcl-2 is the cell
surface.
[0202] Bcl-2 is a protooncogene believed to play a role in
promoting the terminal differentiation of cells, prolonging the
survival of non-cycling cells and blocking apoptosis in cycling
cells. Bcl-2 can exist as a homodimers or can form a heterodimer
with Bax. As a homodimer, Bax functions to induce apoptosis.
However, the formation of a Bax-bcl-2 complex blocks apoptosis. By
blocking apoptosis, bcl-2 expression appears to confer a survival
advantage upon affected cells. Bcl-2 expression may also play a
role in the development of drug resistance. The expression of bcl-2
is negatively regulated by p53.
[0203] Immunohistochemistry analysis of bcl-2 reveals a
heterogeneous pattern of cytoplasmic staining. In adenocarcinoma,
expression of bcl-2 was significantly associated with smaller
tumors (<2 cm) and lower proliferative activity. The expression
of bcl-2 appears to be more closely associated with neuroendocrine
differentiation and occurs in a large percentage of SCLC.
[0204] Overexpression of bcl-2 is not present in preneoplastic
lesions suggesting that changes in bcl-2 occur relatively late in
tumor progression. In addition to tumor cells, bcl-2 immunostaining
also occurs in basal cells and on the luminal surfaces of normal
bronchioles but is generally not detected in more differentiated
cell types.
[0205] Association of bcl-2 immunoreactivity with improved
prognosis in NSCLC is controversial. Several reports of suggested
that patients with tumors expressing bcl-2 have a superior
prognosis and a longer time to recurrence. Several reports indicate
that bcl-2 expression tends to be lower in those patients who
develop metastatic disease. For patients with squamous cell
carcinoma, expression of bcl-2 has been linked to an improvement in
5-year survival. However, in three relatively large studies there
was no survival benefit linked to bcl-2 expression, particularly
for patients with early stage disease.
[0206] Estrogen Receptor-Related Protein (p29) [126]
[0207] ER related protein p29 is an estrogen-related heat shock
protein that has been found to correlate with the expression of
estrogen-receptor. The cellular localization of p29 is
cytoplasmic.
[0208] Estrogen-dependent intracellular processes are important in
the growth regulation of normal tissue and may play a role in the
regulation of malignancies. In one study expression of p29 was
detected in 109 (98%) of 111 lung cancers. The relation between p29
expression and survival time was different for men and women.
Expression of p29 was associated with poorer survival particularly
in women with Stage I and II disease. There was no correlation
between p29 expression and long-term survival in men.
[0209] Retinoblastoma Gene Product (Rb) [68,73,123,127-141]
[0210] Retinoblastoma Gene Product (Rb) is a nuclear DNA-binding
phosphoprotein. Under phosphorylated Rb binds oncoproteins of DNA
tumor viruses and gene regulatory proteins thus inhibiting DNA
replication. Rb protein may act by regulating transcription; loss
of Rb function leads to uncontrolled cell growth. The cellular
localization of Rb is nuclear.
[0211] Retinoblastoma protein (pRb) is a protein that is encoded by
the retinoblastoma gene and is phosphorylated and dephosphorylated
in a cell cycle dependent manner. pRb is considered an important
tumor suppressor gene that functions to regulate the cell cycle at
G0/G1. In its hypophosphorylated state, pRb inhibits the transition
from G1 to S. During G1, inactivation of the growth suppressive
properties of pRb occurs when the cyclin dependent kinases (CDK's)
phosphorylate the protein. The hyperphosphorylation of pRb prevents
it from forming a complex with E2F that functions as a
transcription factor proteins that are required for DNA
synthesis.
[0212] Inactivation of the retinoblastoma (Rb) gene has been
documented in various types of cancer, including lung cancer.
Small-cell carcinomas fail to stain for pRb indicating loss of Rb
function. Overall, 17.6% of the tumors fail to express pRb with no
correlation being seen with respect to stage or nodal status. A
reduction in staining has also seen in 31% dysplastic bronchial
biopsies. However, there appears to be no correlation between pRb
expression and the severity of dysplasia. In contrast, normal
bronchial epithelium and cells taken from areas adjacent to tumors
expressed pRb positive nuclei. These data suggest that alterations
in the expression of the Rb protein may arise early in the
development of some lung cancers.
[0213] Patients with Rb-positive carcinomas tend to have a somewhat
better prognosis but, in most studies, the difference is not
significant. However, patients with adenocarcinoma whose tumors are
both pRb negative and either p53 or ras positive exhibit a decrease
in 5-year survival. A similar relationship does not occur in
squamous cell carcinoma. pRb negative tumors have been reported to
be more likely to exhibit resistant to doxorubicin than Rb-positive
carcinomas.
[0214] Thrombomodulin [142-147]
[0215] Thrombomodulin is a transmembrane glycoprotein. Through its
accelerated activation of protein C (which in turn acts as an
anticoagulant by binding protein S and thrombin), synthesis of TM
is one of several mechanisms important in reducing clot formation
on the surface of endothelial cells. The cellular localization of
thrombomodulin is the cell surface.
[0216] Aggregation of host platelets by circulating tumor cells
appears to play an important role in the metastatic process.
Thrombomodulin plays an important role in the activation of the
anticoagulant protein C by thrombin and is an important modulator
of intravascular coagulation. In addition to its expression in
normal squamous epithelium, expression of thrombomodulin also
occurs in squamous metaplasia, carcinoma in situ, and invasive
squamous cell carcinomas. Although present in 74% of primary
squamous cell carcinomas, only 44% of metastatic lesions stained
for thrombomodulin. These data suggest that, with progression,
there is a decrease in thrombomodulin expression. Higher levels of
expression tend to occur in well and moderately differentiated
tumors when compared to poorly differentiated tumors.
[0217] Patients with thrombomodulin-negative squamous cell
carcinoma tend to have a worse prognosis. Eighteen percent of
patients with thrombomodulin-negative have a five-year survival as
compared to 60% in cases where the tumors stained positive for the
protein. Progression to metastatic disease was also more common in
thrombomodulin-negative tumors (69% vs. 37%) and there was a
greater tendency for these tumors to develop at extrathorasic
sites. Thus, loss of thrombomodulin expression appears to be
prognostic in cases of squamous cell carcinoma. The observation
that changes in thrombomodulin expression occur in later stages of
NSCLC and that the protein is expressed by normal bronchial
epithelial cells would tend to limit its utility as a marker for
early detection. However, since a majority of mesotheliomas and
only a small percentage of adenocarcinomas express thrombomodulin,
the marker has potential utility in discriminating between these
two tumor types.
[0218] E-Cadherin & N-Cadherin [148-151]
[0219] E-cadherin is a transmembrane Ca2+ dependent cell adhesion
molecule. It plays an important role in the growth and development
of cells via the mechanisms of control of tissue architecture and
the maintenance of tissue integrity. E-cadherin contributes to
intercellular adhesion of epithelial cells, the establishment of
epithelial polarization, glandular differentiation, and
stratification. Down-regulation of E-cadherin expression has been
observed in a number of carcinomas and is usually associated with
advanced stage and progression. The cellular localization of
E-cadherin is the cell surface.
[0220] E-cadherin is a calcium-dependent epithelial cell adhesion
molecule. A decrease in E-cadherin expression has been associated
with tumor dedifferentiation and metastasis and decreased survival.
Reduced expression has been observed in moderately and poorly
differentiated squamous cell carcinoma and in SCLC. There was no
change in E-cadherin expression in adenocarcinoma. Furthermore,
while adenocarcinomas express E-cadherin theses tumors fail to
express N-cadherin which is in contrast to mesotheliomas that
express N-cadherin but not E-cadherin. Thus, these markers can be
used to discriminate between adenocarcinoma and mesothelioma.
[0221] Expression of E-cadherin can also be used to assess the
prognosis of patients with squamous cell carcinoma. Whereas 60% of
patients with tumors expressing E-cadherin survived three-year
survival, only 36% of patients exhibiting a reduction in expression
survived 3 years.
[0222] MAGE-1 and MAGE-3 [152-156]
[0223] Melanoma Antigen-1 (MAGE-1) and Melanoma Antigen-3 (MAGE-3)
are members of a family of genes that are normally silent in normal
tissues but when expressed in malignant neoplasms are recognized by
autologous, tumor-directed and specific cytotoxic T cells (CTL's).
The cellular localization of MAGE-1 and MAGE-3 is cytoplasmic.
[0224] MAGE-1, MAGE-3 and MAGE 4 gene products are tumor-associated
antigens that are recognized by cytotoxic T lymphocytes. As such,
they could have utility as targets for immunotherapy in NSCLC. MAGE
proteins are also expressed by some SCLCs but not by normal cells.
While the frequency of MAGE expression falls below the level
necessary for use as a detection marker, differences in the pattern
of expression between histologic types suggest that MAGE expression
may have utility as differentiation markers. This utility is also
supported by the observation that, in 50% of squamous cell
carcinoma greater than 90% of tumor cells showed evidence of MAGE-3
overexpression with 30% to tumors exhibiting overexpression in at
least 50% of cells.
[0225] Nucleolar Protein (p120) [157]
[0226] p120 (proliferation-associated nucleolar antigen) is found
in the cells of nucleoli of rapidly proliferating cells during
early G1 phase. The cellular localization of p120 is nuclear.
[0227] Nucleolar protein p120 is a proliferation-associated protein
whose function has yet to be elucidated. Strong staining has been
detected in tumor tissue but not in macrophages or normal tissue.
Overexpression of p120 was more common in squamous cell carcinoma
that in adenocarcinoma or large cell carcinoma raising the
possibility that this marker may have utility in discriminating
between tumor types.
[0228] Pulmonary Surfactants [83,158-166]
[0229] Pulmonary surfactants are a phospholipid-rich mixture that
functions to reduce the surface tension at the alveolar-liquid
interface, thus providing the alveolar stability necessary for
ventilation. Surfactant proteins appear to be expressed exclusively
in the airway and are produced by alveolar type II cells. In the
non-neoplastic lung, pro-surfactant-B immunoreactivity is detected
in normal and hyperplastic alveolar type II cells and some
non-ciliated bronchiolar epithelial cells. Sixty percent of
adenocarcinomas contained strong cytoplasmic immunoreactivity with
10-50% of tumor cells exhibiting staining the majority of cases.
Squamous cell carcinoma and large cell carcinoma failed to stain
for pro-surfactant-B.
[0230] Surfactant Apoprotein B (SP-B) is one in four hydrophobic
proteins that make up the pulmonary surfactant, which is a
phospholipid and protein complex secreted by type II alveolar
cells. Squamous cell and large cell carcinomas of the lung and
nonpulmonary adenocarcinomas do not express SP-B. The cellular
localization of SP-B is cytoplasmic.
[0231] SP-A is a pulmonary surfactant protein that plays an
essential role in keeping alveoli from collapsing at the end of
expiration. SP-A is a unique differentiation marker of pulmonary
alveolar epithelial cells (type II pneumocytes); the antigen is
preserved even in the neoplastic state. The cellular localization
of SP-A is cytoplasmic.
[0232] Pulmonary surfactant A appears to be specific for
non-mucinous bronchoiolo-alveolar carcinoma with 100% staining as
compared to none of the of mucinous type. Pulmonary surfactants
potentially have utility in discriminating lung cancer from other
cancers metastasized to lung. In addition to tumor cells,
non-neoplastic pheumocytes also stain for pulmonary surfactant A.
As with pulmonary surfactant B staining for pulmonary surfactant A
is relatively common in adenocarcinoma but not in other forms of
NSCLC or in SCLC. Mesothelioma also fails to express pulmonary
surfactant A leading to the suggestion that pulmonary surfactant A
may have utility in the discrimination between adenocarcinoma and
mesothelioma.
[0233] Ki-67
[0234] Ki-67 is a nuclear protein that is expressed in
proliferating normal and neoplastic cells and is down-regulated in
quiescent cells. It is present in G1, S, G2, and M phases of the
cell cycle, but is absent in Go phase. Commonly used as a marker of
proliferation. The cellular localization of Ki-67 is nuclear.
5TABLE 5 Squamous Cell Large Cell Small Cell Marker Carcinoma
Adenocarcinoma Carcinoma Carcinoma Mesothelioma Glut1 100.0.sup.+
64.5 80.5 64.0 NDA* Glut3 17.5 16.0 39.5 9.0 NDA* HERA 100.0 100.0
100.0 NDA 4.5 Basic FGF 83.0 48.7 50.0 100.0 NDA Telomerase 82.3
86.3 93.0 66.7 NDA PCNA 80.0 69.8 87.7 51.0 NDA CD44v6 79.3 34.8
44.2 0.0 NDA Cyclin A 79.0 68.0 83.5 97.0 NDA Cyclin D1 42.7 36.0
62.0 90.0 NDA Hepatocyte Growth 75.5 78.3 100.0 NDA 100.0
Factor/Scatter Factor MUC-1 55.5 90.0 100.0 100 NDA TTF-1 38.0 76.0
NDA 83.0 NDA VEGF 61.8 68.3 100.0 43.5 NDA EGF Receptor 63.1 45.3
96.0 Frequently NDA nm23 68.0 52.6 83.5 73.5 NDA Bcl-2 45.5 43.3
42.5 92.0 NDA Loss of pRb Expression 20.1 25.8 35.4 85.3 NDA
Thrombomodulin 66.8 12.2 4.0 0.0 81.0 E-cadherin 69.0 85.0 NDA
100.0 0.0 N-cadherin NDA 4.0 NDA NDA 94.0 MAGE 1 45.0 35.0 NDA 16.5
NDA MAGE 3 72.0 33.3 NDA 33.5 NDA MAGE 4 45.5 11.0 NDA 50.0 NDA
Nucleolar Protein (p120) 68.0 35.0 30.0 NDA NDA Pulmonary
Surfactant B 0.0 61.5 0.0 NDA NDA Pulmonary Surfactant A 12.0 52.9
17.5 20 0.0 .sup.+percent of tumors exhibiting a change in marker
expression *No Data Available
[0235] a. Obtaining a Library of Marker of a Suitable Size
[0236] Preliminary pruning steps were required in order to obtain a
suitable size library of markers that were correlated with lung
cancer. More than a hundred markers correlated to lung cancer are
known in the literature. A partial listing of candidate probes
identified in the literature and evaluated for potential inclusion
in panels tests include antibodies to: bax, Bcl-2, c-MET (HGFr),
CD44S, CD44v4, CD44v5, CD44v6, cdk2 kinase, CEA (carcino-embryonic
antigen), Cyclin A, Cyclin D1 (bcl-1), E-cadherin, EGFR, ER-related
(p29), erbB-1, erbB-2, FGF-2 (bFGF), FOS, Glut-1, Glut-2, Glut-3,
Glut-4, Glut-5, HERA (MOC-31), HPV-16, HPV-18, HPV-31, HPV-33,
HPV-51, integrin VLA2, integrin VLA3, integrin VLA6, JUN, keratin,
keratin 7, keratin 8, keratin 10, keratin 13, keratin 14, keratin
16, keratin 17, keratin 18, keratin 19, A-type lamins (A; C),
B-type lamins (B 1; B2), MAGE-1, MAGE-3, MAGE-4,
melanoma-associated antigen clone NKI/C3, mdm2, mib-1 (Ki-67),
mucin 1 (MUC-1), mucin 2 (MUC-2), mucin 3 (MUC-3), mucin 4 (MUC-4),
MYC, N-cadherin, NCAM (neural cell adhesion molecule), nm23, p120,
p16, p21, p27, p53, P-cadherin, PCNA, Retinoblastoma, SP-A, SP-B,
Telomerase, Thrombomodulin, Thyroid Transcription Factor 1, VEGF,
vimentin, and wafl. The initial list of markers was pruned by
initially assessing, from the literature, the apparent
effectiveness of the probes in detecting early stage cancer cells,
discriminating between cells of differing cancer states, and
localizing the label to the target cancer cells. This list of
markers was further pruned by removing markers whose utilization
would be difficult to reduce to practice because they are difficult
to produce or obtain, have unsuitable detection technology
requirements or poor reproducibility of reported results. After all
of the pruning steps were complete, a library of 27 markers was
obtained.
[0237] b. Optimizing Protocols and Obtaining Gold Standard Lung
Cancer Samples
[0238] Preliminary preparation steps were also required prior to
obtaining the panels. The probes containing appropriate labels were
available from commercial vendors. The protocols of the probes were
analyzed for optimum objective quantitative detection. For example,
it was determined that the concentration of PCNA was too low.
Originally, PCNA was diluted 1:4000 in S809 buffer. A second
dilution was made, which was 1:3200 in S809. The optimized
protocols for each marker is shown in below. It is noted that the
second column is labeled "Antibody Name". Except for MOC-31, the
probes in this list are listed by the marker name because many of
the vendors refer to the antibody by the name of the marker. It is
noted that an alternative way these reagents might be listed is,
for example, anti-VEGF, anti-Thrombomodulin, anti-CD44v6, etc.
[0239] Gold standard tissue specimens were obtained from UCLA.
Tissue specimens were received from two sources. Cases had been
diagnosed using standard procedures including review of hematoxylin
and eosin (H&E)-stained slides and the clinical history.
Specimen slides were coded and labeled with arbitrary numbers to
blind the study pathologists to the historical diagnosis and
antibody marker and to protect patient confidentiality.
[0240] Specimen slides with tissue sections from cancerous and non
cancerous (control) tissues were used. A total of 175 separate
cases were analyzed. Within this set, the following diagnoses,
located in Table 6 were present with the following frequencies:
6 TABLE 6 Diagnosis Number of occurrences Cancer Adenocarcinoma 25
Large Cell Carcinoma 18 Mesothelioma 26 Small Cell Lung Cancer 20
Squamous Cell Carcinoma 24 Control Emphysema 34 Granulomatous
Disease 3 Interstitial Lung Disease 25
[0241] c. Determination of the Level of Expression of the Panel of
Molecular Markers
[0242] Sufficient specimen slides were prepared for each case so
that only one probe was tested per slide. In general, a microscope
slide is prepared which contains the cytologic sample contacted
with one or more labeled probes that are directed at particular
molecular markers. Independently, each study pathologists examined
an H&E-stained slide to make a diagnosis for each case, and
then examined each probe-reacted and immunochemically-stained slide
to assess the level of probe binding, recording the results on a
standardized data form.
[0243] In greater detail, the immunohistochemical staining was
performed on formalin fixed, paraffin embedded (FFPE) tissue.
Tissue sections were cut at 4 microns thick on poly-L-Lysine coated
slides and dried at room temperature overnight. De-paraffinization
and rehydration of the tissue sections were performed as follows:
To completely remove all of the embedding medium from the specimen
the slides were incubated in two consecutive Xylene-substitute
(Histoclear) baths for five minutes each. All liquid was tapped off
the slides before incubation in two consecutive baths of 100%
reagent grade alcohol for three minutes each. Once again all excess
liquid was tapped off the slides before being incubated in two
final baths of 95% reagent grade alcohol for three minutes each.
After the last bath of 95% the slides were rinsed in tap water and
held in wash buffer (Tris-buffered saline wash buffer containing
0.05% Tween 20 corresponding to a 1:10 dilution of DAKO Autostainer
Wash buffer, code S3306). Table 7, below, presents a complete list
of the reagents used in this study along with corresponding product
code numbers. Detection systems used in the study were DAKO
EnVision+ HRP mouse (code K4007) or rabbit (code K4003) and LSAB+
HRP (code K0690). The protocols for immunoassaying were
followed-according to the package inserts. The kits contained
liquid two component DAB+ substrate chromogen (code K3468).
7TABLE 7 Reagents used in the Study Reagents Code # National
Diagnostics HistoClear HS-200 Mallinckrodt Reagent Alchohol
Absolute 7019-10 DAKO Antibody Diluent S809 DAKO Background
Reducing Antibody Diluent S3022 DAKO Autostainer Buffer 10.times.
S3306 DAKO Target Retrieval Solution S1700 DAKO Hi pH Target
Retrieval Solution S3307 DAKO Proteinase K S3020 Rite Aid Hydrogen
Peroxide 3% None DAKO Protein Block Serum Free X0909 DAKO Goat
Serum X0501 DAKO Swine Serum X0901 DAKO EnVision+ Mouse K4007 DAKO
EnVision+ Rabbit K4003 DAKO LSAB+ K0690 DAKO DAB+ K3468 DAKO
Hematoxylin S3302 Dakomount Mounting Media S3025 Instruments Serial
Numbers DAKO Autostainers 3400-6613-03 3400-6142R-03 Autostainer
IHC Software Version V3.0.2
[0244] Pretreatments were critical in optimizing these antibodies
on lung tissue. For antibodies requiring enzyme digestion, DAKO
Proteinase K (code S3020) was used for 5 minutes at room
temperature. Antibodies requiring heat induced target retrieval
received pretreatment using either DAKO Target Retrieval Solution
(code S1700) or DAKO High pH Target Retrieval Solution (code
S3307). Tissues were placed in a pre-heated Target Retrieval
Solution and incubated in a 95.degree. C. water bath for 20 or 40
minutes depending on the specific protocol. Tissue sections were
then allowed to cool at room temperature for an additional 20
minutes.
[0245] After de-paraffinization, rehydration and tissue
pretreatment, all specimens were incubated in a solution of 3%
hydrogen peroxide to quench endogenous peroxidase activity.
Blocking reagents were used specifically for the two antibodies FGF
and Telomerase in order to minimize nonspecific background.
[0246] As shown in Table 8, below, tissue specimens were incubated
for a specified length of time with 200 micro liters of the
optimally diluted primary antibody. It is noted that the numbering
of the markers/antibodies in Table 8 is consistent with the
numbering of the antibody probes and markers throughout this
document. Slides were then washed in DAKO 1.times. Autostainer
Buffer (code S3306). Depending on the antibody, the correct
detection system was applied. The steps and total incubation times
for the DAKO EnVision+ HRP and LSAB+ HRP detection systems are
shown in Table 9, below. The color reaction is developed using
3,3'-diaminobenzidine (DAB) resulting in a brown color precipitate
at the site of the reaction.
8TABLE 8 Antibodies for Lung Panel Antibody to # Marker:
Pretreatment Block Dilution Primary Inc Detection Sys Clone Vendor
Code# 1 VEGF Hi pH TRS 20 min None 1:15 in S809 30 minutes EnV+
mouse JH121 NeoMarkers MS-350-P S3307 2 Thrombomodulin None None
1:100 in S809 30 minutes EnV+ mouse 1009 DAKO M0617 3 CD44v6 TRS 20
min S1700 None RTU 30 minutes EnV+ mouse VFF-7 NeoMarkers
MS-1093-R7 4 SP-A None None 1:200 is S809 30 minutes EnV+ mouse
PE10 DAKO M4501 5 Retinoblastoma TRS 40 min S1700 None 1:25 in S809
30 minutes EnV+ mouse Rb1 DAKO M7131 6 E-Cadnerin TRS 20 min S1700
None 1:100 in S809 30 minutes EnV+ mouse NCH-38 DAKO M3612 7 Cyclin
A TRS 20 min S1700 None 1:25 in S809 30 minutes EnV+ mouse 6E6
Novocastra NCL 117205 8 nm23 Hi pH TRS 20 min None 1:50 in S809 30
minutes EnV+ rabbit Polyclonal DAKO A0096 S3307 9 Telomerase TRS 20
min S1700 Prot Block 1:400 in S809 Overnight EnV+ rabbit Polyclonal
Alpha EST21-A X0909, Diagnostic 30 min w/5% goat serum X0501 10
Ki-67 TRS 40 min S1700 None 1:200 in S809 30 minutes EnV+ mouse
IVAK-2 DAKO M7240 11 Cyclin D1 Hi pH TRS 20 min None 1:200 in S3022
30 minutes EnV+ mouse DCS-6 DAKO M7155 S3307 12 PCNA Dilution 1 TRS
20 min S170 None 1:4000 in S809 30 minutes EnV+ mouse PC10 DAKO
M0879 13 MAGE-1 Hi pH TRS 20 min None 1:250 in S809 30 minutes EnV+
mouse MA454 NeoMarkes MS 1067 S3307 14 Mucin 1 TRS 20 min S1700
None 1:40 in S809 30 minutes EnV+ mouse VU4H5 Santa Cruz Sc-7313
Biotech 15 SP-B TRS 20 min S1700 None 1:100 in S809 30 minutes EnV+
mouse SPB02 NeoMarkes MS-1300-P1 16 HERA TRS 40 min S1700 None 1:50
in S809 30 minutes EnV+ mouse MOC-31 DAKO M3525 17 FGF-2 None Prot
Block 1:50 in S809 Overnight EnV+ mouse bFM-2 Upstate #05-118
X0909, Biotech 30 min w/5% swine serum X0901 18 C-Met Incomplete
None Incomplete Incomplete EnV+ mouse 8F11 Novocastra 118406 19
TTF-1 TRS 40 min S1700 None 1:25 in S809 30 minutes EnV+ mouse
8G7G3/1 DAKO M3575 20 Bcl-2 Hi pH TRS 20 min None 1:75 in S809 30
minutes EnV+ mouse 124 DAKO M0887 S3307 21 p120 TRA 20 min S1700
None 1:10 in S809 30 minutes EnV+ mouse FB-2 Biogenex MU196-UC 22
N-Cadherin TRS 40 min S1700 None 1:75 in S809 30 minutes EnV+ mouse
6G4 & 6G11 DAKO N/A 23 EGFR Prot K 1:25 for None 1:1500 in S809
30 minutes EnV+ mouse 2-18C9 DAKO K1492 5 min 24 Glut 1 TRS 40 min
S1700 None 1:200 in S809 30 minutes LSAB+ Polyclonal Santa Cruz SC
1605 Biotech 25 ER-related (p29) TRS 40 min S1700 None 1:200 in
S809 30 minutes EnV+ mouse G3.1 Biogenex MU171-UC 26 Mage 3 TRS 40
min S1700 None 1:20 in S809 30 minutes EnV+ mouse 57B G. Spagnoli
N/A 27 Glut 3 TRS 20 min S1700 None 1:80 in S809 30 minutes LSAB+
Polyclonal Santa Cruz SC 7581 Biotech 28 PCNA Dilution 2 TRS 20 min
S1700 None 1:3200 in S809 30 minutes EnV+ mouse PC10 DAKO M0879
[0247]
9TABLE 9 Detection Systems Used in the Study Steps 1
Deparafinization and rehydration 2 baths of Histoclear for 5 mins
each 2 baths of 100% alchohol for 3 mins each 2 baths of 95%
alchohol for 3 mins each Water Rinse 2 Pretreatments TRS 40 or 20
mins High pH TRS 20 mins Proteinase K for 5 mins Water Rinse 3
Peroxidase block Peroxide bath for 5 mins Water Rinse Buffer for 5
mins Protein Block for 30 mins after H2O2 Block 4 Primary Ab 30
mins or Overnight at room temp 5 Detection System EnV+ Systems
Labelled Polymer OR LSAB+ System Secondary Reagent 30 mins 15 mins
Secondary Ab link Tertiary Reagent 15 mins SA-HRP 6 Chromogen
Chromogen Chromogen 10 mins DAB+ 5 minsDAB+
[0248] Following immunostaining all slides were incubated in DAKO
Hematoxylin (code S3302) for 3 minutes and coverslipped using
DAKOMount Mounting Media (S3025). All protocols were run on DAKO
Autostainers (serial #'s 3400-6612-03 & 3400-6142R-03) using
the IHC software version 3.0.2.
[0249] Immunostaining was viewed under a light microscope to
determine that controls were correctly stained and tissues were
intact. Slides were labeled, boxed and sent to designated
pathologists for results interpretation. Trained pathologists
identified the type of cancer or other lesion seen in the samples.
Trained pathologists assessed the sensitivity to the marker probe
by estimating the staining density and proportion of cells stained.
These scores were entered in a data sheet for that patient. The
pathologists were blinded to the original diagnosis and antibody
marker used in the immunostaining. Each slide was read by at least
two pathologists and results recorded on a data collection form. To
provide additional integrity to the process, the method is repeated
with a second or third pathologist. The scores obtained can then be
matched to identify data entry errors. The additional data also
facilitates a better classifier design.
[0250] For each case, up to 27 slides were analyzed, each stained
for a marker coded with numbers 1 through to 17, 19 through to 28.
Staining for marker 18 (C-MET) could not be optimized and the
marker/probe was therefore not used. Pathologist 1 scored slides
from all 175 cases. Pathologist 2 scored slides from 99 of the
cases. Pathologist 3 scored slides from 80 of the cases.
[0251] Table 10 below shows how many cases of each diagnosis each
pathologist scored slides from:
10 TABLE 10 Pathol- Pathol- Pathol- ogist ogist ogist Diagnosis 1 2
3 Cancer Adenocarcinoma 25 12 14 Large Cell Carcinoma 18 9 9
Mesothelioma 26 14 8 Small Cell Lung Cancer 20 12 6 Squamous Cell
Carcinoma 24 13 11 Control Emphysema 34 23 13 Granulomatous Disease
3 3 2 Interstitial Lung Disease 25 13 17
[0252] For the purposes of some selected statistical analysis
techniques, it was necessary to consider only those cases that had
scores for all 27 slides present. Table 11 below shows how many
cases of each diagnosis were complete in terms of having scores
from all 27 slides.
11 TABLE 11 Pathol- Pathol- Pathol- ogist ogist ogist Diagnosis 1 2
3 Cancer Adenocarcinoma 14 10 8 Large Cell Carcinoma 12 9 3
Mesothelioma 17 13 3 Small Cell Lung Cancer 7 9 1 Squamous Cell
Carcinoma 12 13 4 Control Emphysema 32 21 1 Granulomatous Disease 2
1 0 Interstitial Lung Disease 23 7 3
[0253] From this table, it can be calculated that each pathologist
scored the following total number of complete cases. Pathologist 1
scored all 27 slides for 119 of the cases Pathologist 2 scored all
27 slides for 83 of the cases. Pathologist 3 scored all 27 slides
for 23 of the cases.
[0254] The total number of cancer data points is 172. This
comprises 113 data points from Pathologist 1 and 60 data points
from Pathologist 2. The total number of control data points is 101.
This comprises 62 data points from Pathologist 1 and 39 data points
from Pathologist 2.
[0255] FIG. 3 shows a comparisons between H-scores for probes 7 and
15 in control tissue and in cancerous tissue. The x-axis shows the
H-scores while the y-axis shows the percent of cases with that
particular H-score. The difference in H-scores is apparent.
[0256] For each patient the scores were entered electronically into
a Pathology Review Form which-consolidates the scores into a data
base showing the patient identifier together with diagnosis,
proportion of cells stained, and staining density. The proportions
and density were consolidated into a single "H-Score" obtained by
grading the intensity as: none=0, weak=1, moderate=2, intense=3,
and the percentage cells as: 0-5%=0, 6-25%=1, 26-50%=2, 51-75%=3,
>75%=4, and then multiplying the two grades together. For
example, 50% weakly stained plus 50% moderate stained would score
10=2.times.2+2.times.3. This is the standard scoring system
throughout the analysis, except for the section 3(f), below, titled
"Effect of Using other (non-H-score) objective scoring parameters",
which investigates alternative scoring systems.
[0257] Standard classification procedures were used to find the
best combination of probes. Typically these use a search procedure
such as the "Branch and Bound Algorithm" to find a hierarchy of the
best features, ranked according to a test of discriminating power,
and truncated according to a test of significance. This process
also defines the decision rule or rules for best
classification.
[0258] The performance of a classifier designed with these features
can be estimated from the data used to design the classifier. The
straightforward application of all the design data to the
classifier gives a very unsound estimate of performance.
[0259] The analysis of the data collected in the present example
provide the optimum selection of probes which provided the best
separation of classes. Therefore, panels were obtained that only
needed a few probes to perform the analysis. However the data
showed that near-optimum performance could be obtained with other
combinations of probes. Hence, the invention is flexible in being
adaptable to the availability of probes where cost or supply
problems may not allow the very best combination. In some cases,
the invention can simply be applied to the available features to
find an alternative combination. In other cases, the algorithm may
be used to select features which allows cost weightings to be
included in the selection process to arrive at a low cost
solution.
[0260] The design of data collection and analysis experiment was
chosen to avoid biases through the well established double blind
procedures where data collection and data analysis were done
independently.
[0261] In the first case the pathologists reviewed slides with
conventional staining to allow a diagnosis to be made. This
diagnosis was entered on the Pathology Review form. The
pathologists were then presented, in random order, with slides
stained by the marker probes for scoring the percentage of cells
stained and the relative intensity of the staining. The slides were
numbered to exclude information about the probe from the
pathologist. To allow data integrity to be checked two pathologists
reviewed all patients.
[0262] Data were consolidated into a database that was then
reviewed by a team of statisticians. Probes were numbered to render
their method of action as unseen during the analysis of their
effectiveness.
[0263] The first stage of the analysis was to check the integrity
of the data by comparing entries for each patient. Where large
differences were found, the data entries were checked and any
obvious errors were corrected. Unexplained differences were left in
the data.
[0264] The data were then separately analyzed by four
statisticians, using different techniques in recognition of the
fact that different statistical methodologies are suited to
different types of discriminating information in the data.
[0265] The first step in the process of selecting the best probe
combination is to divide the data into two sets, one for designing
a classifier and one for testing the performance of the classifier.
By selecting the design-made with the design (train) set, but
showing the best performance evaluated on the test set, it can be
concluded with confidence that the classifier has generalized to
the structure of the data and not adapted to particular cases seen
in the training set.
[0266] In order to test for reliability the analysis was typically
repeated with many randomly selected sets of training data and test
data. This approach is generally accepted as giving good estimates
of the classifier performance. Where these tests showed
inconsistent selections of probes such probe selections were
discounted as unreliable.
[0267] d. Statistical Analysis and/or Pattern Recognition
[0268] 1. Introduction to Data Analysis
[0269] a. Input Data
[0270] i. Raw Data
[0271] For each patient the scores were entered electronically into
a Pathology Review Form that consolidates the scores into a
database showing the patient identifier together with diagnosis,
proportion of cells stained, and staining density.
[0272] ii. Computed Data
[0273] The efficiency of the score for each probe used in the
analysis is computed from the intensity/percentage tables. The
proportions and density are consolidated into a single "H-Score"
with a simple rule H=proportion stained.times.(3 if intense+2 if
moderate+1 if weakly stained). This is the feature value associated
with that probe.
[0274] iii. Alternative Computed Data Parameters
[0275] The H-score described above was heuristically derived, a
simple analysis to find a better way of combining percentages and
intensity failed to show a significant improvement over H-score
(Section 3(f), titled "Effect of Using other (non-H-score)
objective scoring parameters"). A larger data base may allow the
extraction of a better rule in future.
[0276] iv. User Supplied Weighting Criteria Per Marker
[0277] The invention is flexible in being adaptable to the
availability of features where cost or supply problems may not
allow the very best combination. For example, the invention can
simply be applied to the available features to find and alternative
combination. Alternatively, the algorithm used to select features
allows cost weightings to be included in the selection process to
arrive at a minimum cost solution. Marker performance estimates are
shown for combinations selected from all the markers collected or
only those from one supplier. It is also shown how the C4.5 package
can be used to down weight certain probes, say on the basis of
their high cost. These probe combinations do not perform as well as
the optimum combination, but the performance might be acceptable in
circumstances where cost is a significant factor.
[0278] v. User Supplied Weighting Criteria Per Class
[0279] Some of the methods used allow weightings to be applied to
the classes. This is available in C4.5 where the tree design can
optimize the cost. Also the Discriminant Function method gives a
single parameter output which can be used to give a desired false
positive or false negative probability. A plot of these parameters
for different threshold settings is known as the Receiver Operating
Curve.
[0280] vi. Detection Panels--Assumptions
[0281] A low probability of a false negatives was assumed to be
desirable for the cancer detection process (to avoid positive
patients being missed at the cost of an increased number of false
positives who would require re-screening). It was also assumed that
the cancer discrimination process would require a lower false
positive score (to minimize patients receiving the wrong
treatment).
[0282] It was assumed that detection panels requiring 6 or more
probes to achieve an acceptable performance would not be cost
effective. It was also assumed that a detection panel with a false
negative error rate of more than 5% would not be acceptable. Panels
falling outside this box are not accepted. This assumption
acknowledges that cytometric panels are likely to have a worse
performance than the histology based panels analyzed here. The
ultimate aim will be a cytometric panel which performs better than
20% error rate, this being approximately the performance of
cervical PAP smear screeners.
[0283] vii. Discrimination Panels--Assumptions
[0284] It was assumed that panels requiring 6 or more probes are
not cost effective and it was assumed that an error rate of better
than 20% is required. Panels falling outside this box were not
accepted.
[0285] b. Output Data
[0286] Outputs provided by the present analysis included:
[0287] Confusion Matrices, showing how data from the test set was
classified as either true positive, false positive, true negative
or false negative. These may be shown as actual counts or as
percentages. Confusion matrices are discussed in section 2(d)
titled "Performance Metrics". A confusion matrix shows how data
from a test set was classified as either true positive, false
positive, true negative or false negative. An exemplary confusion
matrix, obtained from data analyzed by decision trees, is shown
below in table 12 for simultaneous discrmination of adenocarcinoma,
squamous cell carcinoma, large cell carcinoma, mesothelioma and
small cell carcinoma
12 TABLE 12 Large Small Adeno Squamous Cell Mesothelioma Cell Adeno
67.74% 6.45% 19.40% 0.00% 6.45% Squamous Cell 2.94% 76.47% 11.67%
0.00% 8.82% Large Cell 28.00% 8.00% 44.00% 8.00% 12.00%
Mesothelioma 0.00% 25.64% 51.28% 89.74% 2.56% Small Cell 0.00%
3.85% 23.08% 3.85% 69.23%
[0288] Error Rates, summarizing data in the confusion matrix as the
sum of all false classifications divided by the total number of
classifications made expressed as a percentage
[0289] Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves show the
estimated percentage (or per unit probability) of false positive
and false negative scores for different threshold levels in the
classifier. An indifferent classifier, unable to discriminate
better than random choice would present a ROC curve with equal true
and false readings. The area under this curve would be 50% (0.5
probability).
[0290] Area Under the Curve (AUC) is often used as an overall
estimate of classifier performance and most standard discriminant
function packages provide this AUC figure. A perfect classifier
would have 100% Area Under the Curve, and a useless classifier
would have an AUC near 50% (0.5).
[0291] Sensitivity and specificity (can be derived from the
confusion matrix). See section 2(d)(iii) titled "Sensitivity and
Specificity".
[0292] Marker correlation matrices. See FIG. 4.
[0293] i. Detection Panels: Composition
[0294] These panels are trained on data divided into two classes,
patients with any of the five cancers and patients with none of the
cancers. Not all probes were present for all patients. Where one or
more probes were missing for a particular analysis these cases were
excised from the data. Hence, where analysis was undertaken on
reduced numbers of probes the data set might include slightly more
cases.
[0295] The number of probes included in the analysis was 27.
Although in many cases a false probe was added where the data
entered for that probe was from a random number generator set to
generate numbers uniformly between zero and 12. This false probe
was included in much of the early analysis to ensure integrity in
the probe selection process. This false probe was also used in one
approach to progressively eliminate probes from the analysis.
Probes that contributed less information than the false probe could
be readily identified and excluded from the selection process.
Early elimination of such probes speeds the analysis and renders
the analysis less vulnerable to variations in results (noise)
caused by these probes.
[0296] ii. Detection Panel Performance
[0297] As outputs from this study, the probe combinations selected
by the different methodologies and their performance estimates in
terms of the confusion matrix, % error rate, and AUC are
reported.
[0298] iii. Detection Panels--Alternative Compositions
[0299] Detection panels were also selected from reduced sets of
probes. In one set of panels, performance measures of panels
weighted for commercially preferred markers were obtained. The
performances obtained when the best probe was removed from the
analysis to find a new combination of discriminating probes was
also analyzed. The performance of a single probe acting on its own
was found to be very high (probe 7). However, as shown below in the
performance diagrams, Table 13, evaluated using linear discriminant
analysis, the performance was improved as more markers were added.
The best subsets of probes were determined using best subsets
logistic regression. The improvement is statistically
significant.
13 TABLE 13 Cancer Control Probe 7 Cancer 87.93% 12.07% Control
0.00% 100.00% Probes 7 and 16 Cancer 93.10% 6.90% Control 1.16%
98.84% Probes 7, 15 and 16 Cancer 90.52% 9.48% Control 1.16% 98.84%
Probes 1, 7, 15, and 16 Cancer 90.52% 9.48% Control 0.00% 100.00%
Probes 1, 4, 7, 15, and 16 Cancer 92.24% 7.76% Control 1.16%
98.84%
[0300] The best and second best subsets of probes (determined using
best subsets logistic regression) and evaluated using logistic
regression is shown below. AUC=Area under ROC curve. It is noted
that mean AUC is the average from 100 trials on random train and
test partitions (70%:30%). The results are shown below, in Table
14.
14 TABLE 14 Probes Mean AUC 7 94.28 28 80.14 7, 16 95 7, 15 94.59
7, 15, 16 95.94 1, 7, 16 95.33 1, 7, 15, 16 95.61 4, 7, 15, 16
95.34 1, 4, 7, 15, 16 95.3 1, 7, 11, 15, 16 95.57
[0301] iv. Discrimination Panels--Composition
[0302] For this part of the study five classifiers were designed
and tested, each designed to detect the presence of one of the
cancer from all patients with cancer. The application of this five
way pair-wise system allows doubtful cases to appear more than once
in the analysis, or not at all. Such cases can be identified and
subjected to closer scrutiny, re-testing or alternative testing
regimes.
[0303] Again the number of probes in the study was 27, with a false
probe used in the early stage to reduce the numbers in the
analysis
[0304] v. Discriminant Panels--Performance
[0305] The performance estimators described above were used to show
the performance of the best probe combinations discovered by the
different techniques
[0306] vi. Discriminant Panels--Alternative Composition
[0307] The analysis was repeated for a probe combination comprising
commercially preferred probes. Performance was degraded, but not
unusable for several reduced-set classifiers. Below, the best
subsets of probes without probe 7, determined using best subsets
logistic regression), is shown, as Table 15. The data was evaluated
using linear discriminat analysis.
15 TABLE 15 Cancer Control Probe 28 Cancer 0.706897 0.293103
Control 0.093023 0.906977 Probes 10 and 28 Cancer 0.793103 0.206897
Control 0.034884 0.965116 Probes 10, 15 and 28 Cancer 0.810345
0.189655 Control 0.011628 0.988372 Probes 1, 10, 15 and 28 Cancer
0.827586 0.172414 Control 0.011628 0.988372 Probes 1, 10, 15, 16
Cancer 0.827586 0.172414 and 28 Control 0.011628 0.988372
[0308] The best and second best subsets of probes with probe 7
(determined using best subsets logistic regression) and evaluated
using logistic regression is shown below. AUC=Area under ROC curve.
It is noted that mean AUC is the average from 100 trials on random
train and test partitions (70%:30%). The results are shown below,
in Table 16.
16 TABLE 16 Probes Mean AUC 28 79.36% 10 82.28% 10, 28 94.21% 15,
28 88.68% 10, 15, 28 92.90% 1, 10, 28 93.59% 1, 10, 15, 28 92.99%
8, 10, 15, 28 93.20% 1, 10, 15, 16, 28 93.13% 1, 8, 10, 15, 28
93.57%
[0309] 2. Data Analysis Methodology
[0310] In this section, the process of gaining an initial
understanding of the structure of the data as a guide to
interpreting results from the different methodologies used is
described.
[0311] a. Analysis of Variance
[0312] i. Pathologist-to-Pathologist Variability and Pooling
Pathologist Scores.
[0313] (1) t--Test
[0314] Two pathologists reviewed each patient's slides in this
clinical trial. Pathologist 1 reviewed all patients, Pathologist 2
also reviewed approximately half of this set and Pathologist 3
reviewed the remainder. With two independent estimates of the
H-score, the consistency of pathologist performance could be
tested.
[0315] A readily available statistical tool was used to test the
variability between pathologists. This is the paired-sample t-test.
This takes the difference between each pair of estimates, averages
these and expresses this as a proportion of the overall variances.
The t-test then converts this ratio into a probability estimating
the likelihood that the two samples sets came from the same
population (the P value).
[0316] This test was applied to the scores for each marker probe,
for all cases reviewed by Pathologist 1 and Pathologist 2, and also
for all cases reviewed by Pathologist 1 and Pathologist 3. Since
there were 27 tests applied (to cover all probes) a low value of
P=0.01 was selected as the "significant threshold". Results,
showing the P scores for each probe, and for the two pairs of
pathologists, are shown below, in Tables 17, 18,19 and 20. It is
clear that Pathologist 1 and Pathologist 2 were more consistent
than Pathologist 1 and Pathologist 3.
17TABLE 17 Pathologist 1, Pathologist 2 scores: X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6
X7 0.5875446 0.01051847 0.4659704 0.4659704 0.3772894 0.2307273
0.01001357 X8 X9 X10 X11 X12 X13 X14 0.004131056 0.7703014
0.1640003 0.2374452 0.9580652 0.1587876 0.001200265 X15 X16 X17 X18
X19 X20 X21 0.19742 0.3860899 0.3829022 NA 0.544601 0.08873848
0.1686243 X22 X23 X24 X25 X26 X27 X28 0.5428451 0.1912477 0.4031977
0.2477236 0.5673386 0.9174037 0.00339071
[0317]
18TABLE 18 Pathologist 1, Pathologist 2 scores thresholded at 0.01
(.alpha. = 1% level of significance): X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 TRUE
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE X8 X9 X10 X11 X12 X13 X14 FALSE TRUE
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE X15 X16 X17 X18 X19 X20 X21 TRUE TRUE
TRUE NA TRUE TRUE TRUE X22 X23 X24 X25 X26 X27 X28 TRUE TRUE TRUE
TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE
[0318]
19TABLE 19 Pathologist 2, Pathologist 3 scores: X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6
X7 3.814506e-09 0.0399131 0.1954867 5.671062e-05 0.01856276
0.2757166 0.2292583 X8 X9 X10 X11 X12 X13 X14 2.044038e-12
0.004166467 0.00983267 0.003710155 0.01461007 0.03312421
0.0003367823 X15 X16 X17 X18 X19 X20 X21 0.0005162036 0.2276537
0.002987705 4.267708e-06 0.007287372 0.1654067 X22 X23 X24 X25 X26
X27 X28 0.02400127 0.0009497766 2.478456e-07 0.1591684 0.08318303
3.122143e-05 1
[0319]
20TABLE 20 Pathologist 1, Pathologist 3 scores thresholded at 0.01
(.alpha. = 1% level of significance):: X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 FALSE
TRUE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE TRUE X8 X9 X10 X11 X12 X13 X14 FALSE
FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE FALSE X15 X16 X17 X18 X19 X20 X21 FALSE
TRUE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE TRUE X22 X23 X24 X25 X26 X27 X28 TRUE
FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE FALSE TRUE
[0320] Because the H score is subjective it is prone to scale
factor differences and noise at marginal cases. So, in spite of the
three features which showed statistically different scores between
Pathologist 1 and Pathologist 2, this joint data was accepted as
representative of a measuring instrument. Pathologist 1 and
Pathologist 2 were combined into a single data set for the analysis
process. The results for Pathologist 3 were withheld for
independent testing purposes. Such tests using the Pathologist 3
data would be biased towards showing an under-performance because
of the significant differences.
[0321] The data from Pathologist 1 and Pathologist 2 were combined
by considering them as separate cases, with the variability giving
a degree of independence between the results for any one case. When
testing with such data the performance estimates will be biased
towards a more optimistic value. This is because samples coming
from the same patient may occur simultaneously in the training a
test subsets. This does not however invalidate the processes used
to find the best combination of features, it merely biases the
estimate of performance.
[0322] (2) Analysis of Variance of H-Scores
[0323] (a) Background
[0324] Within each probe, the H-scores may vary due to many
reasons. To the extent they vary consistently due to the type of
disease this is useful, variation due to which pathologist read the
slide is instructive, whereas random variation sets a limit on the
detection of the previous two sources of variation.
[0325] Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) is a standard technique for
splitting up the sources of variation in data and for testing its
statistical significance. ANOVA summarizes the total variation of a
set of data as a sum of terms which can be attributed to specific
sources, or causes, of variation.
[0326] ANOVA is available in many statistical packages. The public
domain package "R" was chosen ("The R Project for Statistical
Computing", http://www.R-project.org/).
[0327] (b) Aim
[0328] To perform ANOVA analyses on the H-score data from
pathologists 1 and 2 and to consider whether this data can be
safely merged into a single consistent set for further analysis for
the selection of panels.
[0329] (c) Methodology
[0330] From the database, data was selected from pathologists 1 and
2. Only data which was complete for a given probe was used in the
ANOVA for that probe.
[0331] The control categories of Emphysema, Granulomatous Disease,
and Interstitial Lung Disease were grouped together and called
"Normal" giving 6 levels within factor Disease.
[0332] Pathologist was coded as a factor with 2 levels (Pathologist
1, Pathologist 2).
[0333] An R script was written to perform a standard ANOVA analysis
for each probe in turn, using the factors: Disease, Pathologist,
and the interaction term Disease:Pathologist. The results are shown
in below, in Table 21. "Df" is defined as the degrees of freedom.
In a dataset of n observations, knowing n-1 deviations from the
mean, the nth is automatically determined. N-1 is the number of
degrees of freedom. Sum Sq and mean Sq are measures of variation. F
is a test statistic concerning the equality of two variances based
on the F distribution. Pr(>F) is the probability used to
determine whether or not the variability is statistically
significant.
21TABLE 21 Analysis of Variance of H-Scores Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F
value Pr(>F) Probe1 Disease 5 443.56 88.71 15.8202 3.690e-13***
Pathologist 1 0.66 0.66 0.1174 0.7323 Disease: 5 15.34 3.07 0.5470
0.7405 Pathologist Residuals 204 1143.93 5.61 Probe2 Disease 5
1067.39 213.48 24.1234 <2e-16*** Pathologist 1 13.02 13.02
1.4709 0.2263 Disease: 5 27.98 5.60 0.6324 0.6752 Pathologist
Residuals 249 2203.50 8.85 Probe3 Disease 5 1098.49 219.70 21.0751
<2e-16*** Pathologist 1 6.73 6.73 0.6458 0.4224 Disease: 5 29.72
5.94 0.5703 0.7227 Pathologist Residuals 243 2533.16 10.42 Probe4
Disease 5 631.8 126.4 9.3707 3.454e-08*** Pathologist 1 6.6 6.6
0.4869 0.4860 Disease: 5 13.1 2.6 0.1939 0.9647 Pathologist
Residuals 246 3317.1 13.5 Probe5 Disease 5 754.30 150.86 25.2826
<2e-16*** Pathologist 1 14.25 14.25 2.3875 0.1236 Disease: 5
7.54 1.51 0.2528 0.9381 Pathologist Residuals 248 1479.80 5.97
Probe6 Disease 5 721.91 144.38 11.8515 2.771e-10*** Pathologist 1
1.91 1.91 0.1568 0.6925 Disease: 5 47.82 9.56 0.7850 0.5613
Pathologist Residuals 246 2996.93 12.18 Probe7 Disease 5 1171.47
234.29 77.6802 <2e-16*** Pathologist 1 8.84 8.84 2.9294 0.08847
Disease: 5 46.36 9.27 3.0742 0.01063* Pathologist Residuals 209
630.37 3.02 Probe8 Disease 5 209.82 41.96 6.4352 1.201e-05***
Pathologist 1 12.66 12.66 1.9407 0.16483 Disease: 5 71.20 14.24
2.1838 0.05654 Pathologist Residuals 251 1636.76 6.52 Probe9
Disease 5 197.21 39.44 8.4348 2.015e-07*** Pathologist 1 7.33 7.33
1.5681 0.2116 Disease: 5 24.56 4.91 1.0505 0.3884 Pathologist
Residuals 265 1239.17 4.68 Probe10 Disease 5 1113.46 222.69 39.0730
<2e-16*** Pathologist 1 1.01 1.01 0.1778 0.67371 Disease: 5
62.45 12.49 2.1916 0.05635 Pathologist Residuals 213 1213.96 5.70
Probe11 Disease 5 320.15 64.03 9.5553 2.416e-08*** Pathologist 1
1.28 1.28 0.1918 0.6618 Disease: 5 10.04 2.01 0.2996 0.9128
Pathologist Residuals 245 1641.76 6.70 Probe12 Disease 5 832.26
166.45 27.8793 <2e-16*** Pathologist 1 0.18 0.18 0.0307 0.8610
Disease: 5 15.16 3.03 0.5079 0.7701 Pathologist Residuals 248
1480.68 5.97 Probe13 Disease 5 46.594 9.319 7.8408 8.674e-07***
pathologist 1 0.044 0.044 0.0368 0.8481 Disease: 5 10.143 2.029
1.7069 0.1343 Pathologist Residuals 210 249.584 1.188 Probe14
Disease 5 1305.69 261.14 23.9460 <2e-16*** Pathologist 1 28.66
28.66 2.6279 0.10630 Disease: 5 142.90 28.58 2.6208 0.02492*
Pathologist Residuals 243 2649.98 10.91 Probe15 Disease 5 401.02
80.20 21.268 <2e-16*** Pathologist 1 13.17 13.17 3.493 0.0630
Disease: 5 6.17 1.23 0.327 0.8963 Pathologist Residuals 214 807.02
3.77 Probe16 Disease 5 2520.26 504.05 65.5572 <2e-16***
Pathologist 1 0.15 0.15 0.0194 0.8892 Disease: 5 24.29 4.86 0.6318
0.6757 Pathologist Residuals 247 1899.12 7.69 Probe17 Disease 5
530.64 106.13 13.0178 2.426e-11*** Pathologist 1 8.42 8.42 1.0325
0.31050 Disease: 5 109.96 21.99 2.6975 0.02131* Pathologist
Residuals 266 2168.55 8.15 Probe19 Disease 5 1670.86 334.17 29.1960
<2e-16*** Pathologist 1 2.17 2.17 0.1895 0.6637 Disease: 5 32.61
6.52 0.5698 0.7231 Pathologist Residuals 248 2838.56 11.45 Probe20
Disease 5 964.71 192.94 34.2760 <2e-16*** Pathologist 1 8.83
8.83 1.5687 0.2116 Disease: 5 19.60 3.92 0.6963 0.6267 Pathologist
Residuals 245 1379.12 5.63 Probe21 Disease 5 6.927 1.385 2.0604
0.07076 Pathologist 1 0.464 0.464 0.6906 0.40670 Disease: 5 1.576
0.315 0.4687 0.79945 Pathologist Residuals 263 176.830 0.672
Probe22 Disease 5 640.16 128.03 31.7250 <2e-16*** Pathologist 1
1.64 1.64 0.4058 0.5247 Disease: 5 18.78 3.76 0.9305 0.4617
Pathologist Residuals 247 996.81 4.04 Probe23 Disease 5 1915.62
383.12 46.5565 <2e-16*** Pathologist 1 10.77 10.77 1.3092 0.2537
Disease: 5 20.92 4.18 0.5084 0.7698 Pathologist Residuals 246
2024.39 8.23 Probe24 Disease 5 516.06 103.21 24.0786 <2e-16***
Pathologist 1 9.52 9.52 2.2210 0.1376 Disease: 5 12.48 2.50 0.5823
0.7135 Pathologist Residuals 216 925.87 4.29 Probe25 Disease 5
1761.26 352.25 34.5245 <2e-16*** Pathologist 1 11.51 11.51
1.1285 0.2891 Disease: 5 41.49 8.30 0.8134 0.5411 Pathologist
Residuals 248 2530.33 10.20 Probe26 Disease 5 399.85 79.97 13.6548
1.428e-11*** Pathologist 1 0.30 0.30 0.0517 0.8204 Disease: 5 14.81
2.96 0.5056 0.7719 Pathologist Residuals 214 1253.31 5.86 Probe27
Disease 5 117.92 23.58 6.2551 1.956e-05*** Pathologist 1 0.64 0.64
0.1695 0.6810 Disease: 5 25.52 5.10 1.3539 0.2431 Pathologist
Residuals 212 799.31 3.77 Probe28 Disease 5 1634.60 326.92 38.171
<2e-16*** Pathologist 1 8.40 8.40 0.981 0.3229 Disease: 5 16.15
3.23 0.377 0.8643 Pathologist Residuals 267 2286.76 8.56 Signif.
codes: 0 {grave over ( )}***' 0.001 {grave over ( )}**' 0.01 {grave
over ( )}*' 0.05 {grave over ( )}.' 0.1 {grave over ( )} ' 1
[0334] (d) Analysis of Results
[0335] In all cases (except for probe 21) the response of the
probes was related to disease. This is not surprising since the
probes have presumably been selected for this purpose. In no case
is the response of the probe related to pathologist (at the p=0.05
level). This indicates that it would be safe to merge this data and
use the two pathologists as two measurements on the data
[0336] In a few cases, probes 7, 14, 17, there is some evidence of
an interaction term gaining significance. This indicates that there
may be some difference between pathologists in their scoring of
some diseases. Some of these cases may well be due to an occasional
outlier in the data.
[0337] (e) Conclusions
[0338] The results indicate that it is safe to merge this data for
further analysis. The data indicate that the slight interactions in
some cases between pathologist and disease appear to be attributed
to random sources.
[0339] ii. Patient to Patient Variability
[0340] The variability from patient to patient was measured by the
disease:disease variability of section 2(a)(i)(2) (see above,
"Analysis of Variance of H-Scores").
[0341] iii. Marker-to-Marker Variability
[0342] Histograms were plotted (PathologistData.xls, worksheet:
Histograms) showing the distribution of marker scores for each
probe for Control vs. Cancer.
[0343] b. Marker Correlation Matrix Analyses
[0344] The population correlation coefficient ("Applied
Mulitvariate Statistical Analysis", R. A. Johnson and D. W. Wichem,
2nd Ed, 1988, Prentice-Hall, N.J.) measures the amount of linear
association between a pair of random variables. Typically the
distributions and associated parameters of the random variables are
not known and the population correlation coefficient cannot be
directly computed. In this case it is possible to compute the
sample correlation coefficient from sample data. See FIG. 4. The
sample correlation coefficient is, however, only an estimate of the
population correlation coefficient. Moreover, because it is
calculated on the basis of sample data it is possible, purely by
chance, that it may indicate a strong positive or negative
correlation when in reality there may be no actual relationship
between the corresponding random variables ("Modern Elementary
Statistics", J. E. Freund, 6th Ed, 1984, Prentice-Hall, N.J.).
[0345] The correlation coefficient measures the ability of one
variable to predict the other. A strong linear association does
not, however, imply a causal relationship. The square of the
correlation coefficient is called the coefficient of determination.
The coefficient of determination computed for a bivariate data set
measures the proportion of the variability in one variable that can
be accounted for by its linear relationship to the other. When
dealing with several variables, the correlation coefficient can be
calculated for each pair in turn and the set of coefficients can be
written as a matrix called the correlation matrix. See FIG. 4.
[0346] The H-scores for the individual markers can be modeled as
random variables. The sample correlation matrix for this
multivariate data set can be computed from the input data described
in the section titled "Input Data", above.
[0347] c. Pattern Recognition
[0348] Statistical pattern recognition is an approach to
classifying signals or geometric objects on the basis of
quantitative measurements (called features). Statistical pattern
recognition essentially reduces to the problem of dividing the
n-dimensional feature space into regions that correspond to the
categories or classes of interest.
[0349] Three different classifier methodologies employed in this
study are sensitive to different structural forms within the
data.
[0350] For the Decision Tree method a preliminary analysis of
different data combinations identified markers which were never
used by C4.5 for the detection panel. These were removed from the
analysis and this resulted in more consistent results, symptomatic
of the left-out probes only contributing noise to the selection
process.
[0351] Similarly a preliminary analysis of probes used in the
detection panels identified the noisy probes for removal prior to
the detailed analysis.
[0352] The Linear Discriminant Function method in SPSS has built-in
stepwise processes for reducing the numbers of markers in the
analysis. Typically, this reduced the probes used in the analysis
to between 2 and 7.
[0353] The Logistic Regression method in R and SAS implement
stepwise procedures for variable selection. In SAS, a best subsets
variable selection option is also provided. In R, the stepwise
methodology was used in conjunction with multiple random trials to
develop a heuristic method for selecting variables based on the
number of times a given feature was used in 100 random selections
of training and test data (split 70%:30% respectively). Features
with counts comparable to the count for artificial random feature
were progressively eliminated until a minimal consistent set of
features was obtained over 100 runs.
[0354] i. Statistical Methods
[0355] From the point of view of multivariate statistical analysis,
the problem is one of estimating density functions in
high-dimensional space (and partitioning this space into the
regions of interest). Assuming that the distributions of random
(feature) vectors are known, the theoretically best classifier is
the Bayes classifier because it minimizes the probability of
classification error (K. Fukunaga, "Statistical Pattern
Recognition", 2.sup.nd Ed., Academic Press 1990, p. 3).
Unfortunately the implementation of the Bayes classifier is
difficult because of its complexity, especially when the
dimensionality of the feature space is high. In practice, simpler
parametric classifiers are used. Parametric classifiers are based
on assumptions about the underlying density or discriminant
functions. The most common such classifiers are linear and
quadratic classifiers. In multivariate statistical analysis such
classifiers fall under the heading of discriminant analysis.
Discriminant analysis techniques are closely related to
multivariate linear regression models and generalized linear models
(encompassing logistic and multinomial regression).
[0356] (1) Logistic Regression with a Binomial Response
[0357] (a) Background
[0358] The problem of selecting a set of markers to be used on a
detection panel can be formulated as a logistic regression problem
with a binomial response. The response variable is a factor with
two levels: normal (no cancer) and abnormal (cancer). The
explanatory variables are the marker H-scores.
[0359] The problem of selecting a set of markers to be used on a
cancer discrimination panel can also be formulated as a logistic
regression problem with a binomial response. The response variable
is a factor with two levels: normal (not the cancer of interest)
and abnormal (cancer of interest). The explanatory variables are
the marker H-scores.
[0360] Stepwise variable selection can be used to select a subset
of the original variables (markers) for use in discriminating
between the two classes. This is a computationally expensive
exercise and is best suited to a computer. Several commercial- and
public domain software packages--e.g., R, S-plus, and
SAS--implement stepwise logistic regression.
[0361] Two different approaches to feature selection were
investigated based on the stepwise variable selection procedures
found in R and SAS respectively.
[0362] (b) Experimental Data
[0363] The data used for the present analysis consists of the
H-scores for markers 1-17, and 19-28 for the cases examined by
Pathologist 1 and Pathologist 2 and described elsewhere in this
report. In addition, a dummy marker, 18, was added to the data set.
The dummy marker consists of integer values from 0 to 12 selected
at random from a uniform distribution.
[0364] (c) Method 1: Using the R Package (Version 1.4.1)
[0365] Computerized model fitting procedures generally cannot deal
with missing data. This is the case for the glm (glm stands for
generalized linear model) procedure used in R. Consequently when
fitting a model using glm it was necessary to exclude all the cases
for which there are one or more missing values. When fitting the
initial full model, containing the 27 real markers and the single
dummy marker, this reduces the data set to only 202 cases. With so
few observations it was decided that the best way to perform
variable selection, to train a classifier using the selected
variables, and to assess its performance was to undertake 100
trials on random partitions of the data into train and test
sets.
[0366] (i) Partitioning the Data into Train and Test Sets
[0367] At the start of each trial, the data is partitioned into a
test set and a training set. This is done by randomly choosing 30%
of the abnormals and 30% of the normals to form the test set, and
using the remaining observations to form the training set.
[0368] (ii) Variable (Marker) Selection
[0369] At the start of each trial, the full model, which includes
all of the variables (markers), is fitted to the training data. In
R the logistic regression model is fitted using glm. The code
fragment used is as follows:
[0370]
my.model<-Class.about.X1+X2+X2+X3+X4+X5+X6+X7+X8+X9+X10+X11+X12+-
X13+X14+X15+X16+X17+X18+X19+X20+X21+X22+X23+X24+X25+X26+X27+X28
[0371] my.glm<-glm(my.model, family=binomial(link=logit),
data=training.data)
[0372] The procedure stepAIC is then used to perform stepwise
variable selection based on the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC).
This procedure is part of the publicly available MASS library. The
library and the procedure are described in "Modern Applied
Statistics with S-PLUS" (W. N. Venables and B. D. Ripley,
Springer-Verlag, Pathologist 3ew York, 1999). The R code fragment
to do this is as follows:
[0373] my.step<-stepAIC(my.glm, direction=both)
[0374] The resulting model is then assessed on the test data. The
code fragment used is as follows:
22 probability_is_abnormal <-
predict(my.step,testing.data,type="response")
[0375] The performance of the classifier is recorded in terms of
the actual error rate of misclassification (AER) and the area under
the ROC curve (AUC). After the 100 trials, 100 models and their
associated AERs and AUCs remain. A frequency table is constructed,
recording the number of times each variable made an appearance in
the 100 models. An example is shown in Table 22:
23TABLE 22 5
[0376] This table is used to decide which markers to discard.
First, all of the markers that have a frequency less than or equal
to 10 are discarded. Next a cut-off frequency is chosen based on
the frequency of the dummy marker (typically this is 1 or 1.5 times
that of the dummy marker). All markers with a frequency less than
this cut-off value are discarded. The remaining markers, along with
the dummy marker, are then used as the full model for another 100
trials and the pruning process is repeated. If necessary, the
severity of the pruning can be increased to force one or more
markers out of the model. If necessary, the remaining markers can
be used as the full model for yet another 100 trials. Pruning stops
when the desired number of panel members is reached or the average
AUC for the current model is less than that for the preceding
model.
[0377] To illustrate the pruning process consider the table above.
The table was obtained using the detection panel data. The shaded
entries indicate those markers that are retained after pruning.
Another 100 trials is performed using the following full model:
[0378] my.model<-Class.about.X6+X7+X8+X12+X16+X18+X23+X25
[0379] Again, a frequency table, Table 23 is constructed:
24TABLE 23 6
[0380] The shaded entries show the markers retained after pruning
(using a cutoff of 47). Another 100 trials is performed using the
following full model:
[0381] my.model<-Class.about.X6+X7+X8+X12+X18+X23+X25
[0382] Again, a frequency table, Table 24 is constructed:
25TABLE 24 7
[0383] At this point a cut-off of 50 is chosen. The shaded entries
show the remaining markers for use on a 5 member panel. In each
step, the average AUC increases:
94.37%.fwdarw.95.45%.fwdarw.95.78%.
[0384] (iii) Assessing the Performance of the Panel
[0385] To assess the performance of the panel, 100 trials were
performed, as before, but without the stepwise selection procedure.
For each trial, the AUC, sensitivity, and specificity are recorded.
For the detection panel example above, the results are:
[0386] >my-model <-Class.about.X7+X25+X6+X23+X12
[0387] >summary(AUC)
[0388] Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.
[0389] 0.9289 0.9590 0.9615 0.9601 0.9630 0.9630
[0390] >summary(sensitivity)
[0391] Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.
[0392] 0.8519 0.9630 0.9630 0.9737 1.0000 1.0000
[0393] >summary(specificity)
[0394] Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.
[0395] 0.8378 0.9730 0.9730 0.9749 1.0000 1.0000
[0396] In summary, the panel has a sensitivity of 97.37% and a
specificity of 97.49%. The area under the ROC is 96.01%.
[0397] (d) Method 2: Using SAS (Version 8.2)
[0398] Logistic regression can be performed in SAS using the
procedure LOGISTIC. When the response variable is a two-level
factor, the procedure fits a binary logit model (equivalent to glm
in R with family=binomial and link=logit). SAS automatically
excludes all of the missing multivariate observations for the model
specified. Unlike R, SAS is able to perform a best subsets variable
selection procedure. The code fragment in SAS needed to do this is
as follows:
26 PROC LOGISTIC DATA=WORK.panel; CLASS Class; MODEL Class = X1 X2
X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 X10 X11 X12 X13 X14 X15 X16 X17 X18 X19 X20
X21 X22 X23 X24 X25 X26 X27 X28 /SELECTION= SCORE BEST=28; RUN;
[0399] This procedure is applied to the entire data set. The
parameter BEST=28 directs SAS to find the best 28 single-variable
models, the best 28 two-variable models, the best 28 three-variable
models, up to the best 28 28-variable models.
[0400] (i) Assessing the Performance of the Panels
[0401] The procedure described in method 1 is used to assess the
performance of each of the panels. The following, Table 25, was
generated from the detection panel data. It lists results only for
the two best one-, two-, three-, four-, and five-marker panels.
27TABLE 25 Panel Panel members Sensitivity Specificity Area under
ROC 1 7 94.28% 2 28 80.14% 3 7, 16 95.00% 4 7, 15 94.59% 5 7, 15,
16 95.94% 6 1, 7, 16 95.33% 7 1, 7, 15, 16 95.61% 8 4, 7, 15, 16
95.34% 9 1, 4, 7, 15, 16 95.30% 10 1, 7, 11, 15, 16 95.57%
[0402] (2) Linear Discriminant Analysis
[0403] (a) Background
[0404] The commercial statistical package SPSS has procedures
allowing simple linear discriminant functions to be design and
tested.
[0405] A commonly used method is Fisher's Linear discriminant
function. This finds the hyper-plane in feature space which gives a
good separation of classes. For a two class problem where the class
distributions have different means, but similar multivariate
Gaussian distributions, this classifier gives optimum performance.
The method can be extended heuristically to multi-class problems,
but this was not applied in the study.
[0406] The method is simplistic in its approach but robust to
problems associated with data sets containing a large number of
features (the probes in our case number 27, giving problem for a
data set comprising only some two hundred exemplars (cases)).
[0407] This package has a procedure for identifying the features
which contribute well to the discrimination process. This "stepwise
method" first finds the most discriminating feature. Other features
are then sequentially added and evaluated against the classifier.
Combinations are explored so the final solution may exclude
features initially selected if better combinations are found. The
number of features is gradually increased until a statistical test
shows the remaining features do not contribute reliably to the
classification process.
[0408] An estimate of the performance is gained by using the leave
one out method. This removes one sample from the data set to form
the training set. The left out sample is retained as the test set,
applied to the classifier, and the resulting classification
accumulated in the confusion matrix. The procedure is repeated for
case in the data. This procedure gives an unbiased estimate of
performance, but the estimate will have a high variance.
[0409] Method
[0410] In SPSS select the appropriate data set for analysis, select
"Analyze", select "Classify", select "Discriminant . . . ", on the
table select "Fishers method", "leave one out testing" and "use
stepwise method". Enter the diagnosis as the grouping variable and
enter all the features as the independents. Enter "OK" to complete
the analysis. Pre-set values for other parameters were left as
set.
[0411] The analysis output includes a list of the features used in
the analysis, the canonical discriminant function and a confusion
matrix and the correct-classification rate (1-error rate).
[0412] In order to compute an ROC curve the Canonical discriminant
function is applied to the selected features to generate a new
feature. In SPSS use Graphs, ROC to plot this curve
[0413] ii. Hierarchical Methods: Decision Trees
[0414] (1) Background
[0415] Decision tree learning is one of the most widely used and
practical methods for inductive inference. It is a method for
classification that is robust to noisy data and capable of learning
disjunctive expressions (Tom M. Mitchell, "Machine Learning",
McGraw-Hill, New York, N.Y., 1997.)
[0416] The most popular and accessible machine learning package is
"C4.5" the source code of which is published in: (J. Ross Quinlan,
"C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning", Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo
Calif., 1993).
[0417] When a decision tree is being trained (on training data),
the algorithm decides at each node of the tree which single
attribute of the data to use at this node to best make a decision.
Therefore when the tree is completely constructed, it will have
selected some set of attributes to use and ignored others. In our
application, using decision trees to process measurements gained
from molecular probes, the decision tree has effectively chosen a
panel of probes, and a method of combining the probe scores, which
best explains the classification of the data. To obtain an unbiased
estimate of the panel performance, the resulting tree must be
evaluated on data which was not used in the training. One standard
technique for doing this is cross-validation. A 10-fold
cross-validation was employed.
[0418] Cross-validation is a technique for making the very best use
of limited data. In 10-fold cross-validation the data is randomly
split into 10 nearly-equal sized partitions, taking care to have
approximately the same number of cases in a class across each
partition. Then, the decision tree is trained on partitions 2-9
combined and tested on partition 1, then trained on partitions
1,3-9 combined and tested on partition 2, and so on for 10 trials
rotating the held-out test set through the data once. In this
manner tests are only ever performed on held-out data and so are
unbiased, and all data is tested exactly once so an aggregate error
rate across the whole data set can be computed.
[0419] Trees are usually constructed until they are a very good fit
to the training data, then they are "pruned" back by clipping off
"noisy" branches and leaves. This improves the generalization
ability of the decision tree on unseen data and is essential to
obtain good performance. The C4.5 package includes two methods for
pruning trees first a standard tree pruning algorithm, second a
rule extraction algorithm. In general, the tree based method was
found to give superior results on this data. Therefore, the
rule-based method is not reported.
[0420] (2) Data Preparation
[0421] Data on the response of various probes to normal tissue and
five different cancers (Adenocarcinoma, Large Cell Carcinoma,
Mesothelioma, Small Cell Lung Cancer, and Squamous Cell Carcinoma)
was obtained as described elsewhere. The H-scores for probes 1-28,
and pathologists Pathologist 1 and Pathologist 2 were extracted
from the database and put into a flat data file. For the decision
tree analysis each data point (even by two pathologists on a same
physical slide) was taken to be an independent observation of the
effect of disease on staining. This may slightly positively bias
the performance of classification but should have no effect on
panel selection.
[0422] The control categories of Emphysema, Granulomatous Disease,
and Interstitial Lung Disease were grouped together and called
"Normal".
[0423] For the detection panel all the cancers were grouped
together and called "Abnormal" making this a 2-class problem.
[0424] For the single discrimination panel, the Normal cases were
removed from the data to form a 5-class problem.
[0425] For the hold-out discrimination panels, each cancer was held
out in turn and the remaining cancers grouped into "Other" to give
a set of five 2-class problems.
[0426] C4.5 requires a ".names" file which describes the data and
the attributes to be included in the analysis. An example names
file for the discrimination panel is, Table 26:
28 TABLE 26 .vertline. .vertline. C4.5 Names file for MonoGen ZF21
diag data .vertline. Adenocarcinoma, Large Cell Carcinoma,
Mesothelioma, Small Cell Lung Cancer, Squamous Cell Carcinoma.
.vertline. classes P1: continuous. P2: continuous. P3: continuous.
P4: continuous. P5: continuous. P7: continuous. P8: continuous. P9:
continuous. P10: continuous. P11: continuous. P12: continuous. P13:
continuous. P14: continuous. P15: continuous. P16: continuous. P17:
continuous. P18: ignore. P19: continuous. P20: continuous. P21:
continuous. P22: continuous. P23: continuous. P24: continuous. P25:
continuous. P26: continuous. P27: continuous. P28: continuous.
[0427] Probe 18 was missing from the data and was set to "ignore"
in all the designs. Setting attributes to "ignore" in the names
file is an easy and effective way of trimming probes from the
panels and is used in the data analysis.
[0428] (3) Data Analysis
[0429] Ten-fold cross validation was run on each data set using the
"xval.sh" script supplied with C4.5. Standard (default) parameters
for the package were used. Cross validation is a technique
developed for classifier training and testing on small data sets.
It involves randomly splitting the data into N equal sized
partitions. The clasifier is then trained on N-1 partitions
together and tested on the remianing partition. This is repeated N
times.
[0430] Since the decision tree trained in one cross-validation (CV)
trial may differ from the tree obtained in another (different in
both probes selected, and tree coefficients) the number of times
each probe was selected by the tree in 10 trials was computed.
[0431] The first cull of probes was done by setting to ignore any
probe which did not occur in a pruned tree 5 or more times out of
the 10 CV trials.
[0432] Then the cross-validation was repeated with this smaller set
of candidate probes. The second cull of probes was done by setting
to ignore any probe which did not occur in a pruned tree 5 or more
times out of the 10 CV trials. If any further probes dropped out, a
third CV run was done.
[0433] The panels were selected by the various runs, and their
estimated error performance are shown in the results tables. The
panel performance for decision tree analysis is shown below, in
Table 27.
29TABLE 27 Panel Performance - Decision Trees Cancer Control
Detection Panel Cancer 99.42% 0.58% Probes: 3, 7, 19, 25 and 28
Control 17.82% 82.18% Adeno Others Pair-wise Discrimination Adeno
67.74% 32.26% 4, 6, 14, 19 and 23 Others 11.20% 88.80% Squamous
Others Pair-wise Discrimination Squamous 70.59% 29.41% 3, 6, 17, 19
and 25 Others 4.07% 95.93% Large Cell Others Pair-wise
Discrimination Large Cell 36.36% 63.64% 1, 5, 10, 13, 21, 27 and 28
Others 7.37% 92.63% Mesothlioma Others Pair-wise Discrimination
Mesothelioma 82.05% 17.95% 3, 12 and 16 Others 5.00% 95.00% Small
Cell Others Pair-wise Discrimination Small Cell 69.23% 30.77% 12,
17, 20, 23 and 25 Others 1.49% 98.51% Cancer Control Detection
(without probe 7) Cancer 89.60% 10.40% 6, 10, 16 and 19 Control
3.30% 96.70% Cancer Control Detection (only commercially Cancer
92.80% 7.20% preferred probes) Control 5.49% 94.51% 5, 6, 10, 16,
19 and 23
[0434] An example decision tree structure is shown in below, in
Tables 28 and 29, for discriminating between Small Cell Lung Cancer
and the remaining four types of cancer.
[0435] C4.5 Output Format:
30 TABLE 28 P23 <= 3: .vertline. P25 <= 2: Small Cell Lung
Cancer (18.0) .vertline. P25 > 2: .vertline. .vertline. P17
<= 5: Small Cell Lung Cancer (2.0) .vertline. .vertline. P17
> 5: .vertline. .vertline. .vertline. P20 <= 11: Other (9.0)
.vertline. .vertline. .vertline. P20 > 11: Small Cell Lung
Cancer (2.0) P23 > 3: .vertline. P12 > 7: Other (120.0)
.vertline. P12 <= 7: .vertline. .vertline. P20 <= 2: Other
(5.0) .vertline. .vertline. P20 > 2: Small Cell Lung Cancer
(4.0) Tree saved Evaluation on training data (160 items): Before
Pruning After Pruning Size Errors Size Errors Estimate 13 0(0.0%)
13 0(0.0%) (5.2%) <<
[0436]
31TABLE 29 Pictorial format: 8
[0437] The panel performance for stepwise linear discrminant is
shown below, in Table 30:
32TABLE 30 Panel Performance - Stepwise LD Cancer Control Detection
Panel Cancer 92.24% 7.76% 1, 4, 7, 15 and 16 Control 1.16% 98.84%
Adeno Others Pair-wise Discrimination Adeno 91.67% 8.33% 4, 5, 14,
19, 20, 25 and 27 Others 5.43% 94.57% Squamous Others Pair-wise
Discrimination Squamous 88.00% 12.00% 1, 2, 3, 24, 25 and 26 Others
6.59% 93.41% Large Cell Others Pair-wise Discrimination Large Cell
80.95% 19.05% 1 and 7 Others 26.32% 73.68% Mesothelioma Others
Pair-wise Discrimination Mesothelioma 96.67% 3.33% 3, 12 and 16
Others 4.65% 95.35% Small Cell Others Pair-wise Discrimination
Small Cell 93.75% 6.25% 12, 19, 22 and 23 Others 5.00% 95.00%
Cancer Control Detection (without probe 7) Cancer 85.34% 14.66% 1,
2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 15, Control 2.33% 97.67% 16, 23, 24, 27 and 28
Cancer Control Detection (only commercially Cancer 81.20% 18.80%
preferred probes) Control 1.16% 98.84% 8, 10, 11, 19, 23 and 28
[0438] The panel performance for stepwise logistic regression
analysis is shown below, in Table 31:
33TABLE 31 Panel Performance - Stepwise LR Cancer Control Detection
Panel Cancer 97.49% 2.63% 6, 7, 12, 23 and 24 Control 2.51% 97.49%
Adeno Others Pair-wise Discrimination Adeno 96.39% 3.61% 14, 19,
20, 25 and 27 Others 12.29% 87.71% Squamous Others Pair-wise
Discrimination Squamous 94.93% 5.07% 3 and 10 Others 35.86% 64.14%
Large Cell Others Pair-wise Discrimination Large Cell 95.11% 4.89%
1, 4, 6, 16 and 21 Others 61.00% 39.00% Mesothelioma Others
Pair-wise Discrimination Mesothelioma 95.07% 4.93% 3, 7, 12 and 16
Others 10.89% 89.11% Small Cell Others Pair-wise Discrimination
Small Cell 98.90% 1.10% 12, 13 and 23 Others 4.00% 96.00% Cancer
Control Detection (without probe 7) Cancer 94.00% 6.00% 1, 10, 19,
23 and 28 Control 5.80% 94.20% Cancer Control Detection (only
commercially Cancer 93.88% 6.12% preferred probes) Control 6.39%
93.61% 10, 19, 20, 23 and 28
[0439] iii. Neural Networks and alternative methods
[0440] Artificial neural networks ANN's are candidate pattern
recognition techniques which could readily be applied to select
features and design classifiers in association with this invention.
However such techniques give little insight to the structure of the
data and the influence of particular probes in the way that LDF
gives. For this reason this class of algorithm was not used in this
study. LDF stands for linear discriminant function, a linear
combination of features whose result is thresholded to determine
the classification.
[0441] This class of techniques includes algorithms such as
Multi-Layer Perceptron MLP, Back-Prop, Kohonen's Self-Organizing
Maps, Learning Vector Quantization, K-nearest neighbors and Genetic
Algorithms.
[0442] iv. Special Topics
[0443] (1) Assumptions
[0444] Linear discriminant analysis
[0445] Assumes the covariance matrices for the two classes are
equal.
[0446] Minimizes the cost of misclassification only when the two
classes are multivariate normal.
[0447] Assumes that the explanatory variables are continuous rather
than categorical (in this study, the H-scores are categorical while
in practice (i.e., in an automated system) intensity can be
measured on a continuous scale).
[0448] Logistic regression (binomial generalized linear models)
[0449] See Venerables and Ripley, chapter 7 ("Modern Applied
Statistics with S-PLUS" (W. N. Venables and B. D. Ripley,
Springer-Verlag, New York, 1999)).
[0450] (2) Marker Rejection (De-Selection)
[0451] Computerized implementations of discriminant analysis and
regression procedures include stepwise variable selection
procedures; e.g., stepAIC in R. These procedures are designed to
select the best subset of variables for use as explanatory
variables. In reality, because of the step-by-step nature of these
procedures, there is no guarantee that the best variables are
selected for prediction (Johnson and Wichern, p. 299). Nevertheless
such procedures do provide the basis for marker selection and
de-selection.
[0452] (3) Pairwise Tests
[0453] Inherent problems in designing multiclass classifiers is
discussed in "Applied Mulitvariate Statistical Analysis", R. A.
Johnson and D. W. Wichern, 2nd Ed, 1988, Prentice-Hall, N.J. This
is motivation for developing several separate two-class classifiers
(discrimination panel).
[0454] (4) Redundancy Consideration in Panel Composition
[0455] "Linear models form the core of classical statistics and are
still the basis of much of statistical practice" "Modern Applied
Statistics with S-PLUS" (W. N. Venables and B. D. Ripley,
Springer-Verlag, New York, 1999. Linear models are the foundation
for the t-test, analysis of variance (ANOVA), regression analysis,
as well as a variety of multivariate methods including discriminant
analysis. Explanatory variables may or may not enter the model as
first-order terms. This is true also of (non-linear) logistic
regression. The logistic regression model is simply a non-linear
transformation of the linear regression model: the dependent
variable is replaced by a log odds ratio (logit). In summary these
statistical methods are based on linear relationships between the
explanatory variables. Consequently, one avenue for seeking
redundancy in panels is to identify highly correlated variables
(markers). It may be possible to replace one marker with the other
in a panel to achieve similar performance.
[0456] Another avenue for seeking redundancy in panels is to
undertake a "best subsets" regression analysis. Given a starting
model with all of the explanatory variables of interest, the aim is
to find the best single-variable regression models, the best
two-variable regression, etc. This methodology is implemented in
the SAS statistical package.
[0457] (5) Use of Weighting Scores
[0458] (a) Commercial and Clinical Considerations
[0459] For many reasons, including strategic and commercial
factors; cost; availability; ease of use, it may be preferred to
encourage the selection of certain probes in a panel and penalize
the selection of others, at the same time trading this off against
panel size or performance.
[0460] (b) Attribute Costing
[0461] Methods for such attribute weighting (in decision trees)
have been proposed in the machine learning literature in other
contexts such as the incorporation of background knowledge (M.
Nunez, "The Use of Background Knowledge", Machine Learning 6:
231-250, 1991.), and the differential cost of obtaining information
from robotic sensors (M. Tan, "Cost-sensitive Learning of
Classification Knowledge and its Applications in Robotics", Machine
Learning. 13: 7-33, 1993.)
[0462] Both of these cost-sensitive algorithms have been
implemented in the literature by minor changes to the standard
machine learning software package known as "C4.5 (J. Ross Quinlan,
"C4.5: programs for machine learning", Morgan Kaufmann, C A. 1993.)
For convenience, this approach was followed to implement the "EG2"
algorithm of Nunez.
[0463] In the C4.5 decision tree construction phase, the algorithm
compares each available attribute to split on and chooses the
single one which maximizes the information gain, Gi. In the EG2
algorithm, (2.sup.Gi-1)/(Ci+1) is maximized which incorporates the
cost of information for attribute i, Ci. The vector of weights need
to be set a priori by the user.
[0464] (i) Code Modifications
[0465] The C4.5 source code was modified to implement the economic
generalizer "EG2" algorithm proposed by M. Nunez (The Use of
Background Knowledge, Machine Learning 6: 231-250, 1991.)
[0466] The exact modifications to the C4.5 package are as
follows.
[0467] After the following lines in file "R8/Src/contin.c". (J.
Ross Quinlan, "C4.5: programs for machine learning", Morgan
Kaufmann, C A. 1993)
34 ForEach(i, Xp, Lp - 1) { if ( (Val = SplitGain[i] - ThreshCost)
> BestVal ) { BestI = i; BestVal = Val; } }
[0468] The new line:
35 BestVal = (powf(2.0, BestVal) - 1.0) / (AttributeCosts[Att] +
1.0);
[0469] is inserted. Where the vector of attribute costs has been
previously read in from a text file maintained by the user.
[0470] (ii) Experimental Methodology.
[0471] The commercially preferred probes are: 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10,
11, 12, 16, 19, 20, 22, 23, 28.
[0472] For the sake of example, suppose the above probes are
commercially preferred due to cost and it is desired to reselect
the detection panel taking this cost into account.
[0473] The modified C4.5 decision tree software was used to give
the commercially preferred probes a penalty of zero and
non-commercially preferred probes a penalty of two. The 10-fold
cross validated panel selection methodology (as described
elsewhere) was run using the modified C4.5 algorithm
[0474] (iii) Results
[0475] The standard decision tree detection panel consists of
probes 3, 7, 19, 25, 28. Resulting Panel Members: are 2, 6, 7, 10,
19, 25, 28 which used only 2 commercially preferred probes, P7 and
P25. Note these probes have been selected by the method in spite of
their increased cost due to their superior performance on this
data. The panel is now larger: 7 probes versus 5 originally. There
is no demonstratable drop in panel performance on this data
although the performance will now be sub-optimal as a trade off
against the reduced cost of probes.
[0476] (iv) Conclusion
[0477] A straightforward way has been established for incorporating
costs of using probes into the panel selection methodology.
[0478] (c) Misclassification Costing
[0479] (i) Background
[0480] For many reasons it may be desired to select an optimal
panel bearing in mind that the costs of the different kinds of
classification errors may vary. For example, it may be desired to
select a panel which has an increased sensitivity to one disease
(say Large Cell Carcinoma) and be willing to trade this off against
reduced specificity and sensitivity elsewhere in the confusion
matrix.
[0481] In theory a matrix of misclassification costs (of the same
dimensions as the confusion matrix) to incorporate all the possible
combinations of costs may be needed. In practice, only those costs
which are non unity (the default) are entered.
[0482] The commercial decision tree software See 5. (RuleQuest
Research Pty Ltd, 30 Athena Avenue, St Ives Pathologist 3SW 2075,
Australia. (http://www.rulequest.com)) incorporates this capability
and was used in the following demonstration.
[0483] (ii) Aim
[0484] The standard joint discrimination panel (described
elsewhere) consists of the members: P2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 14, 16, 19,
22, 23, 28. And gives the following estimated confusion
36 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) <-classified as 24 4 2 5 2 (a): class
Adenocarcinoma 8 7 3 5 4 (b): class Large Cell Carcinoma 1 1 33 1 4
(c): class Mesothelioma 6 2 1 23 (d): class Small Cell Lung Cancer
4 4 3 2 24 (e): class Squamous Cell Carcinoma
[0485] The sensitivity of Large Cell Carcinoma is low at 26
percent. If one wished to increase this sensitivity in a newly
designed panel, the following method may be employed.
[0486] (iii) Methodology
[0487] The following costs file was generated:
37 .vertline. costs file for ZF21Discrim .vertline. .vertline.
Increase sensitivity for "Large Cell Carcinoma" .vertline.
Mesothelioma, Large Cell Carcinoma: 10 Adenocarcinoma, Large Cell
Carcinoma: 10 Mesothelioma, Large Cell Carcinoma: 10 Small Cell
Lung Cancer, Large Cell Carcinoma: 10 Squamous Cell Carcinoma,
Large Cell Carcinoma: 10
[0488] This file upweights the misclassification of Large Cell
Carcinoma as any of the other cancers by a factor of 10. This will
tend to increase the sensitivity of detection in this class (with
reduced performance elsewhere) but no weighting can ensure perfect
classification.
[0489] The standard decision tree panel selection methodology was
applied (using See 5 instead of C4.5).
[0490] (iv) Results
[0491] The new panel members are: P2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 12, 14, 16,
17, 25, 28. With an estimated performance of:
38 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) <-classified as 20 13 1 1 2 (a): class
Adenocarcinoma 3 13 3 2 6 (b): class Large Cell Carcinoma 1 9 27 2
1 (c): class Mesothelioma 2 9 21 (d): class Small Cell Lung Cancer
1 15 2 1 18 (e): class Squamous Cell Carcinoma
[0492] The above demonstrates that the estimated sensitivity of
Large Cell Carcinoma has now increased to 48%.
[0493] (v) Conclusion
[0494] A straight forward way has been demonstrated for
incorporating the differential costs of misclassification into the
panel selection methodology.
[0495] d. Performance Metrics
[0496] Outputs provided by the analysis indicating the estimated
performance of each method include:
[0497] i. ROC Analyses
[0498] Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves show the
estimated percentage (or per unit probability) of false positive
and false negative scores for different threshold levels in the
classifier. An indifferent classifier, unable to discriminate
better than random choice, would present a ROC curve with equal
true and false readings. The area under this curve would be 50%
(0.5 probability).
[0499] Area Under the Curve (AUC) is often used as an overall
estimate of classifier performance and most commercial discriminant
function packages compute this figure. A perfect classifier would
have 100% Area Under the Curve, a useless classifier would have an
AUC near 50% (0.5).
[0500] ii. Confusion matrices: counts and percentages
[0501] Confusion matrices show how data from the test set was
classified. For pair wise tests these are counts of true positive,
false positive, true negative or false negative scores. These may
be shown as actual counts or as percentages. For the multi-way
Panel, which attempts to give a unique diagnosis with one panel
only, the confusion matrix would show counts for each correct
classification. For instance, each time Small Cell carcinoma is
detected as such it would be entered in one diagonal of the matrix.
Incorrect scores; for instance how often a small cell carcinoma is
incorrectly identified as squamous cell cancer would be entered in
the appropriate off-diagonal element of the matrix. Error Rates are
used to summarize data in the confusion matrix as the sum of all
false classifications divided by the total number of
classifications made, expressed as a percentage.
[0502] iii. Sensitivity and specificity
[0503] Specificity refers to the extent to which any definition
excludes invalid cases. If a definition has poor specificity, it is
high in false positives. This means that it labels individuals as
having a disorder when there is really no disorder present.
Sensitivity refers to the extent to which any definition includes
all valid cases. If a definition has poor sensitivity, it is high
in false negatives (individuals who have a disorder present are
falsely being diagnosed as not having one).
[0504] 3. Data Analysis and Results
[0505] a. Sample Size and Variability
[0506] Of the 354 cases in the combined Pathologist 1 and
Pathologist 2 data set, only 202 cases possessed an H score for
every marker (variable or feature).
[0507] The small number of complete observations and the large
number of variables leads to estimation problems (curse of
dimensionality). Hence it is necessary to prune severely back the
number of variables used to build a classifier.
[0508] Due to the small number of observations it is not prudent to
divide the data into separate training and testing sets (necessary
for the robust estimation of classifier performance). For this
reason, it was necessary to use resampling methods (such as
cross-validation and multiple random trials).
[0509] The design of a multiclass classifier for cancer
discrimination is difficult because there are so few observations
for each type of cancer.
[0510] b. De-Selected Markers
[0511] Markers were de-selected using the methodology described
above. Markers that were de-selected are represented by
non-selection in the panels.
[0512] c. Detection Panel(s) Composition
[0513] i. Selected Marker Probes
[0514] The selected marker probes for all three methods are
summarized in FIG. 5.
[0515] ii. Minimum Selected Marker Set
[0516] For the detection panel it is clear that probe 7 delivered
the best detection performance for a single marker. Combinations of
probes were analyzed to see if a reliable panel could be obtained
with more probes.
[0517] (1) Method
[0518] The Logistic Regression method allows best subsets to be
ranked in terms of a performance measure (Fisher score). This
analysis was used to select the combinations from 1 through 5
probes. Fishers linear discriminant function and logit models
(logistic regression) were used to illustrate the performance of
these combinations. Data shown above.
[0519] (2) Conclusions
[0520] Probe 7 performs well on its own as a classifier; however, a
drawback to using probe 7 alone is that probe 7 has a high false
negative score. The best performance using Fishers linear
discriminant function as a classifier was with probes 7 and 16. The
variability of results amongst panels using other combinations
suggests the noise added by more features is outweighing any
potential to improve classification scores. The small number of
incorrectly scored samples gives a poor representation of the
statistics of these rarer events. A classifier designed with a
larger number of cases may allow a better classifier to be
designed. Techniques to select best combinations of probes using
different classifiers may produce a different best panel, depending
on the structure of the data.
[0521] iii. Supplemental Markers
[0522] It is shown that panels can be designed to suit the
availability of different probes. Different methodologies can be
used for selecting these subsets: Decision Trees, Logistic
Regression, and Linear Discriminant Functions. Data are shown
above.
[0523] Method
[0524] Using SPSS a Fisher's Linear Discriminant function was
applied to the scores obtained from the panel in which constrains
were applied due to access constraints. For example, all of the
probes come from one vendor. Again, the stepwise option was
selected to find the best combination of features. Performance was
estimated using the Leave-One-Out cross validation test.
[0525] iv. Alternative Markers: Biological Mechanisms of Action
(Functionally Equivalent Markers)
[0526] A person of ordinary skill in the art is able to determine
functionally equivalent markers. The functional behaviors of the
markers used in the panel are described throughout this
document.
[0527] v. Marker Localization
[0528] The localizations of the various markers used in this study
are described elsewhere in this document.
[0529] vi. Panel Performance
[0530] The performance of the three methods is shown above.
[0531] vii. Limitations on Interpretation of Panel Performance
[0532] Due to small data set and the need to employ resampling
methods, there is the danger that the classifiers have been
over-trained (made to fit the data too closely).
[0533] The panel performance using cytology specimens is difficult
to forecast accurately since it is not clear whether sputum
cytology samples will contain adequate numbers of cells that are
representative of the cells analyzed in the histological validation
studies. Nevertheless, given an adequate cellular sample size, one
would expect the optimized panel to behave similarly with
cytological specimens.
[0534] d. Discriminant Panel Composition
[0535] i. A Single 5-Way Panel for all Cancers
[0536] Of the three analysis techniques, only a decision tree is
amenable to a single 5-way panel. A single decision tree was
therefore constructed to simultaneously classify all types of lung
cancer. The panel members are shown FIG. 5. The panel performance
is shown above in the panel performance tables.
[0537] ii. Panels for Discriminating a Single Type of Lung Cancer
Against all others
[0538] Linear discriminant functions are not well suited to
performing simultaneous multi-class discrimination. The performance
of five separate classifiers, each designed separately to
discriminate one of the cancers from a pooled set of all the
cancers, was analyzed. Such combinations have the potential to
classify none of the cases as having one of the candidate cancers,
or classify a single case as having two or more of the candidate
cancers. This has a potential advantage in identifying inconsistent
cases for further review.
[0539] It has been seen that the overall error rate of a single
discriminant panel for all cancer types has a fairly high error
rate (a five way classifier). In the panel performance data shown
above, the performance of five pair-wise classifiers, each designed
to identify one cancer from the four other possible cancers is
shown. This approach is amenable to analysis using Decision Trees,
and Linear Discriminant functions. The technique has the potential
to deliver an ambiguous finding when applied, giving two or more
diagnoses for a single patient, suggesting further clinical
investigation. The technique has the potential to deliver no
finding, again suggesting further investigation (perhaps a re-test
with the detection panel).
[0540] iii. Panels to Account for Possibility of False Positive
Cases from Detection Panels
[0541] A further panel can be trained to discriminate among the
false positive cases (from the detection panel) and the five cancer
types. This involves selecting those individual cases from the
detection panel that were incorrectly classified as abnormal. This
trains a dedicated classifier on the `harder` problem of detecting
these `special` cases. However, while this is a theoretically sound
task, the data set only yielded four of these cases and the
population was deemed to be under-represented for analysis.
[0542] iv. Selected Markers
[0543] The selected marker probes for all three methods are
summarized in FIG. 5.
[0544] v. Minimum Selected marker Set
[0545] This topic is addressed below under "Robustness of Approach
Demonstrated by Similar Results Using Different Methods."
[0546] vi. Supplemental Markers
[0547] This topic is addressed below under "Robustness of Approach
Demonstrated by Similar Results Using Different Methods."
[0548] vii. Alternative Markers: Biological Mechanisms of
Action
[0549] A person of ordinary skill in the art is able to determine
functionally equivalent markers. The functional behaviors of the
markers used in the panel are described throughout this
document.
[0550] viii. Marker Localization
[0551] The localization of the various markers used in this study
are described throughout this document.
[0552] ix. Panel Performance
[0553] The performance of the three methods is summarized in FIG.
5.
[0554] e. Effect of Weighting Parameters
[0555] In addition to user-supplied weighting criteria for markers
and also for disease states (classes) as discussed earlier, one can
also use a binary weighting scheme. For example, if all non-DAKO
supplied probes are weighted "0" and all DAKO-supplied probes are
weighted "1", then the optimized panel will contain only
DAKO-supplied probes. This is an improtant product design
capability for any vendor who intends to develop and market
molecular diagnostic panel kits using only their supplies.
[0556] f. Effect of Using other (Non H-Score) Objective Scoring
Parameters
[0557] i. Background
[0558] The Pathology Review sheet contains a set of boxes as
follows, in Table 32:
39 TABLE 32 Intensity None Weak Moderate Intense 0-5% 0 0 0 0 6-25%
1 1 1 1 26-50% 2 2 2 2 51-75% 3 3 3 3 >75% 4 4 4 4
[0559] The standard scoring system uses the "H score" which is
obtained by grading the intensity as: none=0, weak=1, moderate=2,
intense=3, and the percentage cells as: 0-5%=0, 6-25%=1, 26-50%=2,
51-75%=3, >75%=4, and then multiplying the two grades together.
For example, 50% weakly stained plus 50% moderate stained would
score 10=2.times.2+2.times.3.
[0560] ii. Method
[0561] An alternative scoring method was analyzed in which the
response was divided into low, medium and high as follows:
[0562] (a) if more than 50% of cells had moderate or above stain
HIGH
[0563] (b) if more than 50% of cells had no stain LOW
[0564] (c) otherwise MEDIUM
[0565] The decision tree detection panel selection methodology was
repeated using this 3-level factor instead of H-score. This caused
the tree to split into 3 branches at each node, if required.
[0566] iii. Results
[0567] The panel selected was: Probes 3, 7, 10, 11, 16, 19, 20,
28
[0568] With an estimated performance of:
40 Classified as (a) (b) Control (a) 79 22 Specificity = 78% Cancer
(b) 24 149 Sensitivity = 86%
[0569] This should be compared to the reference performance with
H-scores of:
41 Classified as (a) (b) Control (a) 85 6 Specificity = 93% Cancer
(b) 5 120 Sensitivity = 96%
[0570] iv. Conclusions
[0571] There is a substantial loss of performance (larger panels,
lower sensitivity and lower specificity when the proposed
alternative scoring system is used.
[0572] Treating the H-score as a continuous variable (in the range
0 to 12) seems to be near optimal for panel selection on the data
examined.
[0573] The many other possible scoring systems have not been
examined, but may be feasible and applicable to the experimentally
tested panel design and development methodology.
[0574] 4. Lung Cancer Detection and Discrimination Panels
[0575] Listed below are exemplary lung cancer detection and
discrimination panels determined by the above illustrative example.
It is noted that although the panels listed below recite specific
probes, each specific probe may be substituted by a correlate probe
or a functionally related probe.
[0576] Detection (No Constraints)
[0577] anti-Cyclin A combined with one or more additional
probes
[0578] anti-Cyclin A, anti-human epithelial related antigen
(MOC-31)
[0579] anti-Cyclin A, anti-ER-related P29
[0580] anti-Cyclin A, anti-mature surfactant apoprotein B
[0581] anti-Cyclin A, anti-human epithelial related antigen
(MOC-31), anti-VEGF
[0582] anti-Cyclin A, anti-human epithelial related antigen
(MOC-31), anti-mature surfactant apoprotein B
[0583] anti-Cyclin A, anti-mature surfactant apoprotein B,
anti-human epithelial related antigen (MOC-31), anti-VEGF
[0584] anti-Cyclin A, anti-mature surfactant apoprotein B,
anti-human epithelial related antigen (MOC-31), anti-surfactant
apoprotein A
[0585] anti-Cyclin A, anti-mature surfactant apoprotein B;
anti-human epithelial related antigen (MOC-31), anti-VEGF,
anti-surfactant apoprotein A
[0586] anti-Cyclin A, anti-mature surfactant apoprotein B,
anti-human epithelial related
[0587] antigen (MOC-31), anti-VEGF, anti-Cyclin D1
[0588] anti-Cyclin A, anti-human epithelial related antigen
(MOC-31) combined with one or more additional probes
[0589] anti-Cyclin A, anti-ER-related P29 combined with one or more
additional probes
[0590] anti-Cyclin A, anti-mature surfactant apoprotein B combined
with one or more additional probes
[0591] anti-Cyclin A, anti-human epithelial related antigen
(MOC-31), anti-VEGF combined with one or more additional probes
[0592] anti-Cyclin A, anti-human epithelial related antigen
(MOC-31), anti-mature surfactant apoprotein B combined with one or
more additional probes
[0593] anti-Cyclin A, anti-mature surfactant apoprotein B,
anti-human epithelial related antigen (MOC-31), anti-VEGF combined
with one or more additional probes
[0594] anti-Cyclin A, anti-mature surfactant apoprotein B,
anti-human epithelial related antigen (MOC-31), anti-surfactant
apoprotein A combined with one or more additional probes
[0595] anti-Cyclin A, anti-mature surfactant apoprotein B,
anti-human epithelial related antigen (MOC-31), anti-VEGF,
anti-surfactant apoprotein A combined with one or more additional
probes
[0596] anti-Cyclin A, anti-mature surfactant apoprotein B,
anti-human epithelial related antigen (MOC-31), anti-VEGF,
anti-Cyclin D1 combined with one or more additional probes
[0597] Detection (W/O Anti-Cyclin A)
[0598] anti-Ki-67 combined with one or more additional probes.
[0599] anti-Ki-67 combined with any one probe selected from the
group consisting of anti-VEGF, anti-human epithelial related
antigen (MOC-31), anti-TTF-1, anti-EGFR, anti-proliferating cell
nuclear antigen and anti-mature surfactant apoprotein B.
[0600] anti-Ki-67 combined with any two probes selected from the
group consisting of anti-VEGF, anti-human epithelial related
antigen (MOC-31), anti-TTF-1, anti-EGFR, anti-proliferating cell
nuclear antigen and anti-mature surfactant apoprotein B.
[0601] anti-Ki-67 combined with any three probes selected from the
group consisting of anti-VEGF, anti-human epithelial related
antigen (MOC-31), anti-TTF-1, anti-EGFR, anti-proliferating cell
nuclear antigen and anti-mature surfactant apoprotein B.
[0602] anti-Ki-67 combined with any four probes selected from the
group consisting of anti-VEGF, anti-human epithelial related
antigen (MOC-31), anti-TTF-1, anti-EGFR, anti-proliferating cell
nuclear antigen and anti-mature surfactant apoprotein B.
[0603] anti-Ki-67 combined with any five probes selected from the
group consisting of anti-VEGF, anti-human epithelial related
antigen (MOC-31), anti-TTF-1, anti-EGFR, anti-proliferating cell
nuclear antigen and anti-mature surfactant apoprotein B.
[0604] anti-Ki-67, anti-VEGF, anti-human epithelial related antigen
(MOC-31), anti-TTF-1, anti-EGFR, anti-proliferating cell nuclear
antigen and anti-mature surfactant apoprotein B
[0605] anti-Ki-67 combined with any one probe selected from the
group consisting of anti-VEGF, anti-human epithelial related
antigen (MOC-31), anti-TTF-1, anti-EGFR, anti-proliferating cell
nuclear antigen and anti-mature surfactant apoprotein B, and with
one or more additional probes.
[0606] anti-Ki-67 combined with any two probes selected from the
group consisting of anti-VEGF, anti-human epithelial related
antigen (MOC-31), anti-TTF-1, anti-EGFR, anti-proliferating cell
nuclear antigen and anti-mature surfactant apoprotein B, and with
one or more additional probes.
[0607] anti-Ki-67 combined with any three probes selected from the
group consisting of anti-VEGF, anti-human epithelial related
antigen (MOC-31), anti-TTF-1, anti-EGFR, anti-proliferating cell
nuclear antigen and anti-mature surfactant apoprotein B, and with
one or more additional probes.
[0608] anti-Ki-67 combined with any four probes selected from the
group consisting of anti-VEGF, anti-human epithelial related
antigen (MOC-31), anti-TTF-1, anti-EGFR, anti-proliferating cell
nuclear antigen and anti-mature surfactant apoprotein B, and with
one or more additional probes.
[0609] anti-Ki-67 combined with any five probes selected from the
group consisting of anti-VEGF, anti-human epithelial related
antigen (MOC-31), anti-TTF-1, anti-EGFR, anti-proliferating cell
nuclear antigen and anti-mature surfactant apoprotein B, and with
one or more additional probes.
[0610] anti-Ki-67, anti-VEGF, anti-human epithelial related antigen
(MOC-31), anti-TTF-1, anti-EGFR, anti-proliferating cell nuclear
antigen, anti-mature surfactant apoprotein B and one or more
additional probes.
[0611] Detection With Commerically Preferred Probes
[0612] anti-Ki-67 combined with one or more additional probes.
[0613] anti-TTF-1 combined with one or more additional probes.
[0614] anti-EGFR combined with one or more additional probes.
[0615] anti-proliferating cell nuclear antigen combined with one or
more additional probes.
[0616] two probes selected from the group consisting of anti-Ki-67,
anti-TTF-1, anti-EGFR and anti-proliferating cell nuclear
antigen.
[0617] three probes selected from the group consisting of
anti-Ki-67, anti-TTF-1, anti-EGFR and anti-proliferating cell
nuclear antigen.
[0618] anti-Ki-67, anti-TTF-1, anti-EGFR and anti-proliferating
cell nuclear antigen
[0619] two probes selected from the group consisting of anti-Ki-67,
anti-TTF-1, anti-EGFR and anti-proliferating cell nuclear antigen,
and one or more additional probes.
[0620] three probes selected from the group consisting of
anti-Ki-67, anti-TTF-1, anti-EGFR and anti-proliferating cell
nuclear antigen, and one or more additional probes.
[0621] anti-Ki-67, anti-TTF-1, anti-EGFR, anti-proliferating cell
nuclear antigen, and one or more additional probes.
[0622] Discrimination Between Adenocarcinoma and Other Lung
Cancers
[0623] anti-mucin 1 and anti-TTF-1
[0624] anti-mucin 1 and anti-TTF-1 combined with any one probe
selected from the group consisting of anti-VEGF, anti-surfactant
apoprotein A, anti-BCL2, anti-ER-related P29 and anti-Glut 3
anti-mucin 1 and anti-TTF-1 combined with and two probes selected
from the group consisting of anti-VEGF, anti-surfactant apoprotein
A, anti-BCL2, anti-ER-related P29 and anti-Glut 3
[0625] anti-mucin 1 and anti-TTF-1 combined with any three probes
selected from the group consisting of anti-VEGF, anti-surfactant
apoprotein A, anti-BCL2, anti-ER-related P29 and anti-Glut 3
[0626] anti-mucin 1 and anti-TTF-1 combined with any four probes
selected from the group consisting of anti-VEGF, anti-surfactant
apoprotein A, anti-BCL2, anti-ER-related P29 and anti-Glut 3
[0627] anti-VEGF, anti-surfactant apoprotein A, anti-mucin 1,
anti-TTF-1, anti-BCL2, anti-ER-related P29 and anti-Glut 3
[0628] anti-mucin 1, anti-TTF-1 and one or more additional
probes
[0629] anti-mucin 1 and anti-TTF-1 combined with any one probe
selected from the group consisting of anti-VEGF, anti-surfactant
apoprotein A, anti-BCL2, anti-ER-related P29 and anti-Glut 3, and
with one or more additional probes
[0630] anti-mucin 1 and anti-TTF-1 combined with and two probes
selected from the group consisting of anti-VEGF, anti-surfactant
apoprotein A, anti-BCL2, anti-ER-related P29 and anti-Glut 3, and
with one or more additional probes
[0631] anti-mucin 1 and anti-TTF-1 combined with any three probes
selected from the group consisting of anti-VEGF, anti-surfactant
apoprotein A, anti-BCL2, anti-ER-related P29 and anti-Glut 3, and
with one or more additional probes
[0632] anti-mucin 1 and anti-TTF-1 combined with any four probes
selected from the group consisting of anti-VEGF, anti-surfactant
apoprotein A, anti-BCL2, anti-ER-related P29 and anti-Glut 3, and
with one or more additional probes
[0633] anti-VEGF, anti-surfactant apoprotein A, anti-mucin 1,
anti-TTF-1, anti-BCL2, anti-ER-related P29, anti-Glut 3 and one or
more additional probes
[0634] Discrimination Between Squamous Cell Carcinoma and Other
Lung Cancers.
[0635] anti-CD44v6 combined with one or more additional probes
[0636] anti-CD44v6 combined with any one probe selected from the
group consisting of anti-VEGF, anti-thrombomodulin, anti-Glut 1,
anti-ER-related P29 and anti-melanoma-associated antigen 3
[0637] anti-CD44v6 combined with any two probes selected from the
group consisting of anti-VEGF, anti-thrombomodulin, anti-Glut 1,
anti-ER-related P29 and anti-melanoma-associated antigen 3
[0638] anti-CD44v6 combined with any three probes selected from the
group consisting of anti-VEGF, anti-thrombomodulin, anti-Glut 1,
anti-ER-related P29 and anti-melanoma-associated antigen 3
[0639] anti-CD44v6 combined with any four probes selected from the
group consisting of anti-VEGF, anti-thrombomodulin, anti-Glut 1,
anti-ER-related P29 and anti-melanoma-associated antigen 3
[0640] anti-CD44v6, anti-VEGF, anti-thrombomodulin, anti-Glut 1,
anti-ER-related P29 and anti-melanoma-associated antigen 3
[0641] anti-CD44v6 combined with any one probe selected from the
group consisting of anti-VEGF, anti-thrombomodulin, anti-Glut 1,
anti-ER-related P29 and anti-melanoma-associated antigen 3, and
with one or more additional probes
[0642] anti-CD44v6 combined with any two probes selected from the
group consisting of anti-VEGF, anti-thrombomodulin, anti-Glut 1,
anti-ER-related P29 and anti-melanoma-associated antigen 3, and
with one or more additional probes
[0643] anti-CD44v6 combined with any three probes selected from the
group consisting of anti-VEGF, anti-thrombomodulin, anti-Glut 1,
anti-ER-related P29 and anti-melanoma-associated antigen 3, and
with one or more additional probes
[0644] anti-CD44v6 combined with any four probes selected from the
group consisting of anti-VEGF, anti-thrombomodulin, anti-Glut 1,
anti-ER-related P29 and anti-melanoma-associated antigen 3, and
with one or more additional probes
[0645] anti-CD44v6, anti-VEGF, anti-thrombomodulin, anti-Glut 1,
anti-ER-related P29, anti-melanoma-associated antigen 3 and one or
more additional probes
[0646] Discrimination Between Large Cell Carcinoma and Other Lung
Cancers
[0647] anti-VEGF combined with one or more additional probes.
anti-VEGF and anti-p120
[0648] anti-VEGF and anti-Glut 3 anti-VEGF, anti-p120 and
anti-Cyclin A
[0649] anti-VEGF, anti-p120 and one or more additional probes
[0650] anti-VEGF, anti-Glut 3 and one or more additional probes
[0651] anti-VEGF, anti-p120, anti-Cyclin A and one or more
additional probes
[0652] Discrimination Between Mesothelioma and Other Lung
Cancers
[0653] anti-CD44v6 combined with one or more additional probes.
[0654] anti-proliferating cell nuclear antigen combined with one or
more additional probes.
[0655] anti-human epithelial related antigen (MOC-31) combined with
one or more additional probes.
[0656] two probes selected from the group consisting of
anti-CD44v6, anti-proliferating cell nuclear antigen and anti-human
epithelial related antigen (MOC-31), combined with one or more
additional probes
[0657] anti-CD44 v6, anti-proliferating cell nuclear antigen,
anti-human epithelial related antigen (MOC-31) and one or more
additional probes.
[0658] Discrimination Between Small Cell and Other Lung Cancers
[0659] anti-proliferating cell nuclear antigen combined with one or
more additional probes.
[0660] anti-BCL2 combined with one or more additional probes.
[0661] anti-EGFR combined with one or more additional probes.
[0662] two probes selected from the group consisting of
anti-proliferating cell nuclear antigen, anti-BCL2 and
anti-EGFR
[0663] anti-proliferating cell nuclear antigen, anti-BCL2,
anti-EGFR
[0664] two probes selected from the group consisting of
anti-proliferating cell nuclear antigen, anti-BCL2 and anti-EGFR,
combined with one or more additional probes
[0665] anti-proliferating cell nuclear antigen, anti-BCL2,
anti-EGFR and one or more additional probes
[0666] Simultaneous Discrimination of Adenocarcinoma, Squamous Cell
Carcinoma, Large Cell Carcinoma, Mesothelioma and Small Cell
Carcinoma
[0667] two or more probes selected from anti-VEGF,
anti-thrombomodulin, anti-CD44v6, anti-surfactant apoprotein A,
anti-proliferating cell nuclear antigen, anti-mucin 1, anti-human
epithelial related antigen (MOC-31), anti-TTF-1, anti-N-cadherin,
anti-EGFR and anti-proliferating cell nuclear antigen
[0668] anti-VEGF, anti-thrombomodulin, anti-CD44v6, anti-surfactant
apoprotein A, anti-proliferating cell nuclear antigen, anti-mucin
1, anti-human epithelial related antigen (MOC-31), anti-TTF-1,
anti-N-cadherin, anti-EGFR and anti-proliferating cell nuclear
antigen
[0669] two or more probes selected from anti-VEGF,
anti-thrombomodulin, anti-CD44v6, anti-surfactant apoprotein A,
anti-proliferating cell nuclear antigen, anti-mucin 1, anti-human
epithelial related antigen (MOC-31), anti-TTF-1, anti-N-cadherin,
anti-EGFR and anti-proliferating cell nuclear antigen, combined
with one or more additional probes
[0670] anti-VEGF, anti-thrombomodulin, anti-CD44v6, anti-surfactant
apoprotein A, anti-proliferating cell nuclear antigen, anti-mucin
1, anti-human epithelial related antigen (MOC-31), anti-TTF-1,
anti-N-cadherin, anti-EGFR and anti-proliferating cell nuclear
antigen, combined with one or more additional probes
[0671] 5. Conclusions
[0672] a. Validity of Panel Approach to Molecular Diagnostics
[0673] i. Non-Intuitive Solutions
[0674] Histograms were plotted (PathologistData.xls, worksheet:
Histograms) showing the distribution of marker scores for each
probe for Control vs. Cancer. It is clear from these histograms
that an intuitive selection of probes for specific panels is
certainly not obvious and the invention described does allow
effective combinations to be found in the absence of an obvious
method.
[0675] ii. Optimization for Varied Product Applications
[0676] iii. Robustness of Approach Demonstrated by Similar Results
Using Different Methods
[0677] Detailed scrutiny of the results obtained by the various
analyses in the body of this report, and as summarized in the
tables and figures, shows the following findings.
[0678] 1. Careful scrutiny of the performance of individual probes
does not make apparent probe combinations that might perform better
than any one probe alone.
[0679] 2. All three classification methodologies evaluated hone in
on similar sets of features. The small differences can be
attributed to the data structure that may favor one classifier over
another.
[0680] 3. All the classifiers designed with one of these methods
were shown to give good performance when tested on data from an
independent pathologist, unseen during the design process. This
gives high confidence in the invention.
[0681] 4. A detection panel based on probe 7 alone gives a high
performance.
[0682] 5. If probe 7 is combined with probe 16 or 25 then a better
performance is obtained.
[0683] 6. While combinations of other probes with probe 7 appear to
improve performance further, the number of extra cases captured is
so low that they may be unrepresentative and the classifier so
designed may not generalize.
[0684] 7. The performance of panels selected from probes excluding
probe 7 provided some discrimination, good enough in comparison
with current practice using human screening, but perhaps not good
enough for an automated cytometer in tomorrow's clinical diagnostic
cytology world (see FIG. 6).
[0685] 8. Other combinations of probes can provide a useful, but
lesser, performance.
[0686] 9. If some probes become unavailable this invention allows
the selection of other combinations of probes. This was illustrated
by classifier designs based on a commercially preferred set of
probes only. See FIG. 7.
[0687] 10. The invention allows a weighting to be applied against
costly probes. Rather than totally excluding them from the analysis
this allows their inclusion in the panel if their contribution is
important.
[0688] 11. The invention allows the design of single lung cancer
type specific discrmination panels that can discriminate one type
of lung cancer from among all other cancers.
[0689] 12. Analysis of the performance of a single panel to
classify five cancers showed discrimination was possible but the
overall error rate was worse than a set of five panels each
designed to discriminate one of the cancers from the others.
[0690] 13. A very useful discrimination was obtained with the
combination of five two way classifiers.
[0691] 14. Common sets of probes were selected by the three
classification methodologies for the five discrimination panels,
again giving confidence in this result.
[0692] 15. Probes for isolating cases of Adenocarcinoma are 1, 14,
19, 20, 25, and 27.
[0693] 16. Probes for isolating cases of Squamous Cell cancer are
1, 2, 3, 24, 25, and 26.
[0694] 17. Probes for isolating cases of Large Cell cancer are 1
and 7 or 1, and 21.
[0695] 18. Probes for isolating cases of Mesothelioma are 3, 12,
and 16.
[0696] 19. Probes for isolating cases of Small Cell cancer are 12,
20, and 23.
[0697] 20. Probes for recognizing all cancers simultaneously are 1,
2, 3, 4, 12, 14, 19, 22, 23, and 28.
[0698] 21. An advantage of using the multiple pair-wise panels as
defined by this invention is that doubtful cases may not score on
any of the five panels, also confusing cases may show on two or
more panels. Such anomalous reports would alert the cytologist that
further analysis is indicated.
[0699] iv. Risk Management Study
[0700] All the tests applied in this study were statistical in
nature. There is a risk that probes selected on the basis of small
improvements in performance will have statistical variations when
tested on new data. To give confidence in the results, the best
classifier emerging from the Linear Discriminant analysis on the
Pathologist 1 and Pathologist 2 data was tested. It should be
remembered that the Pathologist 3 data was statistically different
from the Pathologist 1 and Pathologist 2 data, so if good
performances are obtained when tests using the Pathologist 3 data,
then this would be encouraging indeed.
[0701] (1) Report on Testing with Unseen Data--Detection Panel
[0702] (a) Method
[0703] In the Section titled "Detection Panel(s) Composition"
above, we showed that good classification is obtained with features
7 and 16. Using SPSS all the Pathologist 3 data that reported H
scores for both 7 and 16 was selected. Then, using Transform and
Compute, the canonical discrimination function was generated as a
new feature. The performance of this feature alone was then
tested.
[0704] (b) Results
[0705] These are the results of testing the classifier designed on
Pathologist 1 and Pathologist 2 data and testing on Pathologist 3
data. The classifier was designed using the linear discriminant
function on probes 7 and 16. The Canonical Pathologist 2 function
was =0.965*Probe7-0.298*Probe16.
[0706] Classification Results on Pathologist 3 Data Using Probes 7
and 16
42 Predicted Group Diagnosis Membership (UCLA) 0 1 Total Original
Count 0 20 1 21 1 6 41 47 % 0 95.2 4.8 100.0 1 12.8 87.2 100.0
Cross-validated Count 0 20 1 21 1 6 41 47 % 0 95.2 4.8 100.0 1 12.8
87.2 100.0
[0707] a cross validation is done only for those cases in the
analysis. In cross validation, each case is classifies by the
functions derived from all cases other than that case.
[0708] b 89.7% of original grouped cases correctly classified.
[0709] c 89.7% of cross-validated grouped cases correctly
classified.
[0710] This is better than classifying the Pathologist 3 data on
probe 7 only show as follows
[0711] Classification Results on Pathologist 3 Data Using Probe 7
Only
43 Predicted Group Diagnosis Membership (UCLA) 0 1 Total Original
Count 0 20 1 21 1 8 39 47 % 0 95.2 4.8 100.0 1 17.0 83.0 100.0
Cross-validated Count 0 20 1 21 1 8 39 47 % 0 95.2 4.8 100.0 1 17.0
83.0 100.0
[0712] a Cross validation is done only for those cases in the
analysis. In cross validation, each case is classified by the
functions derived from all cases other than that case.
[0713] b 86.8% of original grouped cases correctly classified.
[0714] c 86.8% of cross-validated grouped cases correctly
classified.
[0715] (c) Conclusion
[0716] This gives confidence that the two-probe classifier based on
7 and 16 is better than probe 7 alone
[0717] (5) Report on Testing with Unseen Data--Discrimination
Panel
[0718] (a) Background
[0719] Reported below is the performance of the classifier designed
with Pathologist 1 and Pathologist 2 data using LDF and tested with
the unseen Pathologist 3 data. The numbers of cases at the design
stage was relatively small and the numbers in the test data are
also small, so a good degree of variability can be expected between
performance on the first and second
[0720] (b) Method
[0721] In SPSS, the canonical discrimination functions derived in
the section titled "Pattern recognition", were built and tested on
Pathologist 3 data for all five classes of cancer
[0722] (c) Results
[0723] Mesothelioma LDF--
probe3sc*0.385-probe12s*0.317+probe16s*1.006
[0724] Classification Results
44 Predicted Group Meso = 1, Membership others = 0 0 1 Total
Original Count 0 38 2 40 1 1 7 8 % 0 95.0 5.0 100.0 1 12.5 87.5
100.0 Cross- Count 0 38 2 40 validated 1 1 7 8 % 0 95.0 5.0 100.0 1
12.5 87.5 100.0
[0725] a Cross validation is done only for those cases in the
analysis. In cross validation, each case is classifies by the
functions derived from all cases other than that case.
[0726] b 93.8% of original grouped cases correctly classified.
[0727] c 93.8% of cross-validated grouped cases correctly
classified.
[0728] Small cell cancer
LDF=probe12s*0.575-probe20s*0.408-probe22s*0.423+-
probe23s*0.344
[0729] Classification Results
45 Predicted Group Small = 1, Membership others = 0 0 1 Total
Original Count 0 39 3 42 1 1 5 6 % 0 92.9 7.1 100.0 1 16.7 83.3
100.0 Cross- Count 0 39 3 42 validated 1 1 5 6 % 0 92.9 7.1 100.0 1
16.7 83.3 100.0
[0730] a Cross validation is done only for those cases in the
analysis. In cross validation, each case is classified by the
functions derived from all cases other than that case.
[0731] b 91.7% of original grouped cases correctly classified.
[0732] c 91.7% of cross-validated grouped cases correctly
classified.
[0733] Squamous cell cancer
LDF=-probe1sc*0.328-probe2sc*0.295+probe3sc*0.-
741+probe24s*0.490+probe25s*0.393+probe26s*0.426
[0734] Classification Results
46 Predicted Group Squamous = 1, Membership others = 0 0 1 Total
Original Count 0 31 4 35 1 2 9 11 % 0 88.6 11.4 100.0 1 18.2 81.8
100.0 Cross- Count 0 31 4 35 validated 1 2 9 11 % 0 88.6 11.4 100.0
1 18.2 81.8 100.0
[0735] a Cross validation is done only for those cases in the
analysis. In cross validation, each case is classified by the
functions derived from all cases other than that case.
[0736] b 87.0% of original grouped cases correctly classified.
[0737] c 87.0% of cross-validated grouped cases correctly
classified.
[0738] Large cell cancer LDF=probe1sc*0.847+probe7sc*0.452
[0739] Classification Results
47 Predicted Group Large = 1, Membership others = 0 0 1 Total
Original Count 0 23 15 38 1 4 5 9 % 0 60.5 39.5 100.0 1 44.4 55.6
100.0 Cross- Count 0 23 15 38 validated 1 4 5 9 % 0 60.5 39.5 100.0
1 44.4 55.6 100.0
[0740] a Cross validation is done only for those cases in the
analysis. In cross validation, each case is classified by the
functions derived from all cases other than that case.
[0741] b 59.6% of original grouped cases correctly classified.
[0742] c 59.6% of cross-validated grouped cases correctly
classified.
[0743] The lower, but useful, performance was on a classifier
designed and tested with a very small number of cases of large cell
cancer, so this result is still very encouraging.
[0744] Adenocarcinoma,
LDF=-probe4sc*0.515+probe5sc*-0.299-probe14s*0.485--
probe19s*0.347+probe2os*0.723+probe25s*0.327+probe27s*0.327
[0745] Classification Results
48 Predicted Group Adeno = 1, Membership Others = 0 0 1 Total
Original Count 0 29 5 34 1 0 14 14 % 0 85.3 14.7 100.0 1 .0 100.0
100.0 Cross- Count 0 29 5 34 validated 1 0 14 14 % 0 85.3 14.7
100.0 1 .0 100.0 100.0
[0746] a Cross validation is done only for those cases in the
analysis. In cross validation, each case is classified by the
functions derived from all cases other than that case.
[0747] b 89.6% of original grouped cases correctly classified.
[0748] c 89.6% of cross-validated grouped cases correctly
classified.
[0749] (d) Conclusion
[0750] It is very encouraging to note the performance of these
classifiers stand up to the tests of applying unseen data. This
gives a very high confidence in the ability to detect the
individual cancers.
[0751] (3) Training and Testing on Data from Different Patients and
Pathologists
[0752] As a "final final" test of robustness a LDF was trained on
the data that was reviewed by both Pathologist 1 and Pathologist 2.
This removes data reviewed by Pathologist 3. Hence testing on data
reviewed by both Pathologist 3 plus Pathologist 1 data is not
biased. Previously the test process was biased through using data
from the same patient for test and train.
[0753] LDF produced the same set of features except for probe 4
which was not included. The LDF
was=probe1sc*0.288+probe7sc*0.846-probe15s*0.249-pr-
obe16s*0.534
[0754] Classification Results
[0755] Area Under the Curve=0.977
49 Predicted Group Diagnosis Membership (UCLA) 0 1 Total Original
Count 0 20 0 20 1 9 37 46 % 0 100.0 .0 100.0 1 19.6 80.4 100.0
Cross- Count 0 20 0 20 validated 1 9 37 46 % 0 100.0 .0 100.0 1
19.6 80.4 100.0
[0756] a Cross validation is done only for those cases in the
analysis. In cross validation, each case is classified by the
functions derived from all cases other than that case.
[0757] b 86.4% of original grouped cases correctly classified.
[0758] c 86.4% of cross-validated grouped cases correctly
classified.
[0759] Still a reasonable result, but a similar result, but with a
smaller area under the curve, was obtained with probe7 alone on
Pathologist 3 only data
[0760] Classification Results
[0761] Area Under the curve=0.908
50 Predicted Group Diagnosis Membership (UCLA) 0 1 Total Original
Count 0 19 1 20 1 7 39 46 % 0 95.0 5.0 100.0 1 15.2 84.8 100.0
Cross- Count 0 19 1 20 validated 1 7 39 46 % 0 95.0 5.0 100.0 1
15.2 84.8 100.0
[0762] a Cross validation is done only for those cases in the
analysis: In cross validation, each case is classified by the
functions derived from all cases other than that case.
[0763] b 87.9% of original grouped cases correctly classified.
[0764] c 87.9% of cross-validated cases correctly classified.
REFERENCES
[0765] [1] Goldberg-Kahn, B., Healy, J. C. and Bishop, J. W. (1997)
The cost of diagnosis: a comparison of four different strategies in
the workup of solitary radiographic lung lesions. Chest 111,
870-6.
[0766] [2] O'Donovan, P. B. (1997) The radiologic appearance of
lung cancer. Oncology (Huntingt) 11, 1387-402; discussion
1402-4.
[0767] [3] Worrell, J. A. (1995) Radiology of the central airways.
Otolaryngol Clin North Am 28, 701-20.
[0768] [4] Henschke, C. I., Miettinen, O. S., Yankelevitz, D. F.,
Libby, D. M. and Smith, J. P. (1994) Radiographic screening for
cancer. Proposed paradigm for requisite research. Clin Imaging 18,
16-20.
[0769] [5] Lam, S., Kennedy, T., Unger, M., Miller, Y. E., Gelmont,
D., Rusch, V., Gipe, B., Howard, D., LeRiche, J. C., Coldman, A.
and Gazdar, A. F. (1998) Localization of bronchial intraepithelial
neoplastic lesions by fluorescence bronchoscopy. Chest 113,
696-702.
[0770] [6] Sazon, D. A., Santiago, S. M., Soo Hoo, G. W., Khonsary,
A., Brown, C., Mandelkem, M., Blahd, W. and Williams, A. J. (1996)
Fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography in the detection
and staging of lung cancer. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 153,
417-21.
[0771] [7] Lowe, V. J., DeLong, D. M., Hoffman, J. M. and Coleman,
R. E. (1995) Optimum scanning protocol for FDG-PET evaluation of
pulmonary malignancy. J Nucl Med 36, 883-7.
[0772] [8] Lowe, V. J., Fletcher, J. W., Gobar, L., Lawson, M.,
Kirchner, P., Valk, P., Karis, J., Hubner, K., Delbeke, D.,
Heiberg, E. V., Patz, E. F. and Coleman, R. E. (1998) Prospective
investigation of positron emission tomography in lung nodules. J
Clin Oncol 16, 1075-84.
[0773] [9] Raab, S. S., Hornberger, J. and Raffin, T. (1997) The
importance of sputum cytology in the diagnosis of lung cancer: a
cost-effectiveness analysis. Chest 112, 937-45.
[0774] [10] Franklin, W. A. (1998) New molecular and cellular
approaches to lung cancer detection. In: Biology of Lung Cancer,
pp. 529-570.
[0775] [11] Kern, W. H. (1988) The diagnostic accuracy of sputum
and urine cytology. Acta Cytol 32, 651-4.
[0776] [12] Mehta, A. C., Marty, J. J. and Lee, F. Y. (1993) Sputum
cytology. Clin Chest Med 14, 69-85.
[0777] [13] Gledhill, A., Bates, C., Henderson, D., DaCosta, P. and
Thomas, G. (1997) Sputum cytology: a limited role. J Clin Pathol
50, 566-8.
[0778] [14] Steffee, C. H., Segletes, L. A. and Geisinger, K. R.
(1997) Changing cytologic and histologic utilization patterns in
the diagnosis of 515 primary lung malignancies. Cancer 81,
105-15.
[0779] [15] Zaman, M. B. (1991) Pulmonary cytology. Clin Lab Med
11, 293-315.
[0780] [16] Flehinger, B. J. and Melamed, M. R. (1994) Current
status of screening for lung cancer. Chest Surg Clin N Am 4,
1-15.
[0781] [17] Koss, L. G., Melamed, M. R. and Goodner, J. T. (1964)
Pulmonary cytology: A brief survey of diagnostic results from Jul.
1, 1952 until Dec. 31, 1960. Acta Cytol 8, 104.
[0782] [18] Saccomanno, G., Saunders, R. P., Ellis, H., Archer, V.
E., Wood, B. G. and Beckler, P. A. (1963) Concentration of
carcinoma or atypical cells in sputum. Acta Cytol 5, 305-310.
[0783] [19] Miura, H., Konaka, C., Kawate, N., Tsuchida, T. and
Kato, H. (1992) Sputum cytology-positive, bronchoscopically
negative adenocarcinoma of the lung [see comments]. Chest 102,
1328-32.
[0784] [20] Valatis, J., Warrens, D. and Gamble, D. (1981)
Increased incidence of adenocarcinoma of the lung. Cancer 47,
1042-1046.
[0785] [21] Baldini, E. H. and Strauss, G. M. (1997) Women and lung
cancer: waiting to exhale. Chest 112, 229S-234S.
[0786] [22] Caldwell, C. J. and Berry, C. L. (1996) Is the
incidence of primary adenocarcinoma of the lung increasing?
Virchows Arch 429, 359-63.
[0787] [23] Risse, E. K., Vooijs, G. P. and van't Hof, M. A. (1987)
Relationship between the cellular composition of sputum and the
cytologic diagnosis of lung cancer. Acta Cytol 31, 170-6.
[0788] [24] Holiday, D. B., McLarty, J. W., Farley, M. L., Mabry,
L. C., Cozens, D., Roby, T., Waldron, E., Underwood, R. D.,
Anderson, E., Culbreth, W. and et al. (1995) Sputum cytology within
and across laboratories. A reliability study. Acta Cytol 39,
195-206.
[0789] [25] Eddy, D. M. (1989) Screening for lung cancer [see
comments]. Ann Intern Med 111, 232-7.
[0790] [26] Younes, M., Brown, R. W., Stephenson, M., Gondo, M. and
Cagle, P. T. (1997) Overexpression of Glut1 and Glut3 in stage I
nonsmall cell lung carcinoma is associated with poor survival.
Cancer 80, 1046-51.
[0791] [27] Ogawa, J., Inoue, H. and Koide, S. (1997)
Glucose-transporter-type-1-gene amplification correlates with
sialyl-Lewis-X synthesis and proliferation in lung cancer. Int J
Cancer 74, 189-92.
[0792] [28] Ito, T., Noguchi, Y., Satoh, S., Hayashi, H., Inayama,
Y. and Kitamura, H. (1998) Expression of facilitative glucose
transporter isoforms in lung carcinomas: its relation to histologic
type, differentiation grade, and tumor stage [see comments]. Mod
Pathol 11, 437-43.
[0793] [29] Sosolik, R. C., McGaughy, V. R. and De Young, B. R.
(1997) Anti-MOC-31: a potential addition to the pulmonary
adenocarcinoma versus mesothelioma immunohistochemistry panel. Mod
Pathol 10, 716-9.
[0794] [30] Ordonez, N. G. (1998) Value of the MOC-31 monoclonal
antibody in differentiating epithelial pleural mesothelioma from
lung adenocarcinoma. Hum Pathol 29, 166-9.
[0795] [31] Takanami, I., Tanaka, F., Hashizume, T., Kikuchi, K.,
Yamamoto, Y., Yamamoto, T. and Kodaira, S. (1996) The basic
fibroblast growth factor and its receptor in pulmonary
adenocarcinomas: an investigation of their expression as prognostic
markers. Eur J Cancer 32A, 1504-9.
[0796] [32] Takanami, I., Imamura, T., Hashizume, T., Kikuchi, K.,
Yamamoto, Y., Yamamoto, T. and Kodaira, S. (0.1996)
Immunohistochemical detection of basic fibroblast growth factor as
a prognostic indicator in pulmonary adenocarcinoma. Jpn J Clin
Oncol 26, 293-7.
[0797] [33] Ohta, Y., Endo, Y., Tanaka, M., Shimizu, J., Oda, M.,
Hayashi, Y., Watanabe, Y. and Sasaki, T. (1996) Significance of
vascular endothelial growth factor messenger RNA expression in
primary lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2, 1411-6 1996.
[0798] [34] Volm, M., Koomagi, R., Mattern, J. and Stammler, G.
(1997) Prognostic value of basic fibroblast growth factor and its
receptor (FGFR-1) in patients with non-small cell lung carcinomas.
Eur J Cancer 33, 691-3.
[0799] [35] Hiyama, K., Hiyama, E., Ishioka, S., Yamakido, M.,
Inai, K., Gazdar, A. F., Piatyszek, M. A. and Shay, J. W. (1995)
Telomerase activity in small-cell and non-small-cell lung cancers
[see comments]. J Natl Cancer Inst 87, 895-902.
[0800] [36] Yashima, K., Litzky, L. A., Kaiser, L., Rogers, T.,
Lam, S., Wistuba, II, Milchgrub, S., Srivastava, S., Piatyszek, M.
A., Shay, J. W. and Gazdar, A. F. (1997) Telomerase expression in
respiratory epithelium during the multistage pathogenesis of lung
carcinomas. Cancer Res 57, 2373-7.
[0801] [37] Ahrendt, S. A., Yang, S. C., Wu, L., Westra, W. H.,
Jen, J., Califano, J. A. and Sidransky, D. (1997) Comparison of
oncogene mutation detection and telomerase activity for the
molecular staging of non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res 3,
1207-14.
[0802] [38] Albanell, J., Lonardo, F., Rusch, V., Engelhardt, M.,
Langenfeld, J., Han, W., Klimstra, D., Venkatraman, E., Moore, M.
A. and Dmitrovsky, E. (1997) High telomerase activity in primary
lung cancers: association with increased cell proliferation rates
and advanced pathologic stage. J Natl Cancer Inst 89, 1609-15.
[0803] [39] Hiyama, K., Ishioka, S., Shay, J. W., Taooka, Y.,
Maeda, A., Isobe, T., Hiyama, E., Maeda, H. and Yamakido, M. (1998)
Telomerase activity as a novel marker of lung cancer. and
immune-associated lung diseases. Int J Mol Med 1, 545-9.
[0804] [40] Yahata, N., Ohyashiki, K., Ohyashiki, J. H., Iwama, H.,
Hayashi, S., Ando, K., Hirano, T., Tsuchida, T., Kato, H., Shay, J.
W. and Toyama, K. (1998) Telomerase activity in lung cancer cells
obtained from bronchial washings. J Natl Cancer Inst 90,
684-90.
[0805] [41] Lee, J. C., Jong, H. S., Yoo, C. G., Han, S. K., Shim,
Y. S. and Kim, Y. W. (1998) Telomerase activity in lung cancer cell
lines and tissues. Lung Cancer 21, 99-103.
[0806] [42] Arai, T., Yasuda, Y., Takaya, T., Ito, Y., Hayakawa,
K., Toshima, S., Shibuya, C., Yoshimi, N. and Kashiki, Y. (1998)
Application of telomerase activity for screening of primary lung
cancer in broncho-alveolar lavage fluid. Oncol Rep 5, 405-8.
[0807] [43] Fujii, M., Motoi, M., Saeki, H., Aoe, K. and Moriwaki,
S. (1993) Prognostic significance of proliferating cell nuclear
antigen (PCNA) expression in non-small cell lung cancer. Acta Med
Okayama 47, 103-8.
[0808] [44] Kawai, T., Suzuki, M., Kono, S., Shinomiya, N.,
Rokutanda, M., Takagi, K., Ogata, T. and Tamai, S. (1994)
Proliferating cell nuclear antigen and Ki-67 in lung carcinoma.
Correlation with DNA flow cytometric analysis. Cancer 74,
2468-75.
[0809] [45] Ogawa, J., Tsurumi, T., Yamada, S., Koide, S. and
Shohtsui A. (1994) Blood vessel invasion and expression of sialyl
Lewisx and proliferating cell nuclear antigen in stage I non-small
cell lung cancer. Relation to postoperative recurrence. Cancer 73,
1177-83.
[0810] [46] Ebina, M., Steinberg, S. M., Mulshine, J. L. and
Linnoila, R. I. (1994) Relationship of p53 overexpression and
up-regulation of proliferating cell nuclear antigen with the
clinical course of non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Res 54,
2496-503.
[0811] [47] Fontanini, G., Vignati, S., Bigini, D., Merlo, G. R.,
Ribecchini, A., Angeletti, C. A., Basolo, F., Pingitore, R. and
Bevilacqua, G. (1994) Human non-small cell lung cancer: p53 protein
accumulation is an early event and persists during metastatic
progression [see comments]. J Pathol 174, 23-31.
[0812] [48] Wiethege, T., Voss, B. and Muller, K. M. (1995) P53
accumulation and proliferating-cell nuclear antigen expression in
human lung cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 121, 371-7.
[0813] [49] Esposito, V., Baldi, A., De Luca, A., Micheli, P.,
Mazzarella, G., Baldi, F., Caputi, M. and Giordano, A. (1997)
Prognostic value of p53 in non-small cell lung cancer: relationship
with proliferating cell nuclear antigen and cigarette smoking. Hum
Pathol 28, 233-7.
[0814] [50] Caputi, M., Esposito, V., Groger, A. M., Pacilio, C.,
Murabito, M., Dekan, G., Baldi, F., Wolner, E. and Giordano, A.
(1998) Prognostic role of proliferating cell nuclear antigen in
lung cancer: an immunohistochemical analysis. In Vivo 12, 85-8.
[0815] [51] Hirata, T., Fukuse, T., Naiki, H., Hitomi, S. and Wada,
H. (1998) Expression of CD44 variant exon 6 in stage I non-small
cell lung carcinoma as a prognostic factor. Cancer Res 58,
1108-10.
[0816] [52] Ariza, A., Mate, J. L., Isamat, M., Lopez, D., Von
Uexkull-Guldeband, C., Rosell, R., Femandez-Vasalo, A. and
Navas-Palacios, J. J. (1995) Standard and variant CD44 isoforms are
commonly expressed in lung cancer of the non-small cell type but
not of the small cell type. J Pathol 177, 363-8.
[0817] [53] Fasano, M., Sabatini, M. T., Wieczorek, R., Sidhu, G.,
Goswami, S. and Jagirdar, J. (1997) CD44 and its v6 spliced variant
in lung tumors: a role in histogenesis? Cancer 80, 34-41.
[0818] [54] Miyoshi, T., Kondo, K., Hino, N., Uyama, T. and Monden,
Y. (1997) The expression of the CD44 variant exon 6 is associated
with lymph node metastasis in non-small cell lung cancer. Clin
Cancer Res 3, 1289-97.
[0819] [55] Tran, T. A., Kallakury, B. V., Sheehan, C. E. and Ross,
J. S. (1997) Expression of CD44 standard form and variant isoforms
in non-small cell lung carcinomas. Hum Pathol 28, 809-14.
[0820] [56] Takigawa, N., Segawa, Y., Mandai, K., Takata, I. and
Fujimoto, N. (1997) Serum CD44 levels in patients with non-small
cell lung cancer and their relationship with clinicopathological
features. Lung Cancer 18, 147-57.
[0821] [57] Kondo, K., Miyoshi, T., Hino, N., Shimizu, E., Masuda,
N., Takada, M., Uyama, T. and Monden, Y. (1998) High frequency
expressions of CD44 standard and variant forms in non-small cell
lung cancers, but not in small cell lung cancers. J Surg Oncol 69,
128-36.
[0822] [58] Sasaki, J. I., Tanabe, K. K., Takahashi, K., Okamoto,
I., Fujimoto, H., Matsumoto, M., Suga, M., Ando, M. and Saya, H.
(1998) Expression of CD44 splicing isoforms in lung cancers:
dominant expression of CD44v8-10 in non-small cell lung carcinomas.
Int J Oncol 12, 525-33.
[0823] [59] Volm, M., Koomagi, R., Mattern, J. and Stammler, G.
(1997) Cyclin A is associated with an unfavourable outcome in
patients with non-small-cell lung carcinomas. Br J Cancer 75,
1774-8.
[0824] [60] Dobashi, Y., Shoji, M., Jiang, S. X., Kobayashi, M.,
Kawakubo, Y. and Kameya, T. (1998) Active cyclin A-CDK2 complex, a
possible critical factor for cell proliferation in human primary
lung carcinomas. Am J Pathol 153, 963-72.
[0825] [61] Volm, M., Rittgen, W. and Drings, P. (1998) Prognostic
value of ERBB-1, VEGF, cyclin A, FOS, JUN and MYC in patients with
squamous cell lung carcinomas [published erratum appears in Br J
Cancer 1998 April; 77(7):1198]. Br J Cancer 77, 663-9.
[0826] [62] Shoji, M., Dobashi, Y., Morinaga, S., Jiang, S. X. and
Kameya, T. (1999) Tumor extension and cell proliferation in
adenocarcinomas of the lung. Am J Pathol 154, 909-18.
[0827] [63] Shapiro, G. I., Edwards, C. D., Kobzik, L., Godleski,
J., Richards, W., Sugarbaker, D. J. and Rollins, B. J. (1995)
Reciprocal Rb inactivation and p161NK4 expression in primary lung
cancers and cell lines. Cancer Res 55, 505-9.
[0828] [64] Betticher, D. C., Heighway, J., Hasleton, P. S.,
Altermatt, H. J., Ryder, W. D., Cerny, T. and Thatcher, N. (1996)
Prognostic significance of CCND1 (cyclin D1) overexpression in
primary resected non-small-cell lung cancer. Br J Cancer 73,
294-300.
[0829] [65] Mate, J. L., Ariza, A., Aracil, C., Lopez, D., Isamat,
M., Perez-Piteira, J. and Navas-Palacios, J. J. (1996) Cyclin D1
overexpression in non-small cell lung carcinoma: correlation with
Ki67 labelling index and poor cytoplasmic differentiation. J Pathol
180, 395-9.
[0830] [66] Yang, W. I., Chung, K. Y., Shin, D. H. and Kim, Y. B.
(1996) Cyclin D1 protein expression in lung cancer. Yonsei Med J
37, 142-50.
[0831] [67] Betticher, D. C., Heighway, J., Thatcher, N. and
Hasleton, P. S. (1997) Abnormal expression of CCND1 and RB 1 in
resection margin epithelia of lung cancer patients. Br J Cancer 75,
1761-8.
[0832] [68] Nishio, M., Koshikawa, T., Yatabe, Y., Kuroishi, T.,
Suyama, M., Nagatake, M., Sugiura, T., Ariyoshi, Y., Mitsudomi, T.
and Takahashi, T. (1997) Prognostic significance of cyclin D1 and
retinoblastoma expression in combination with p53 abnormalities in
primary, resected non-small cell lung cancers. Clin Cancer Res 3,
1051-8.
[0833] [69] Caputi, M., De Luca, L., Papaccio, G., A, D. A.,
Cavallotti, I., Scala, P., Scarano, F., Manna, M., Gualdiero, L.
and De Luca, B. (1997) Prognostic role of cyclin D1 in non small
cell lung cancer: an immunohistochemical analysis. Eur J Histochem
41, 133-8.
[0834] [70] Betticher, D. C., White, G. R., Vonlanthen, S., Liu,
X., Kappeler, A., Altermatt, H. J., Thatcher, N. and Heighway, J.
(1997) G1 control gene status is frequently altered in resectable
non-small cell lung cancer. Int J Cancer 74, 556-62.
[0835] [71] Volm, M., Koomagi, R. and Rittgen, W. (1998) Clinical
implications of cyclins, cyclin-dependent kinases, RB and E2F1 in
squamous-cell lung carcinoma. Int J Cancer 79, 294-9.
[0836] [72] Kurasono, Y., Ito, T., Kameda, Y., Nakamura, N. and
Kitamura, H. (1998) Expression of cyclin D1, retinoblastoma gene
protein, and p16 MTS1 protein in atypical adenomatous hyperplasia
and adenocarcinoma of the lung. An immunohistochemical analysis.
Virchows Arch 432, 207-15.
[0837] [73] Tanaka, H., Fujii, Y., Hirabayashi, H., Miyoshi, S.,
Sakaguchi, M., Yoon, H. E. and Matsuda, H. (1998) Disruption of the
RB pathway and cell-proliferative activity in non-small-cell lung
cancers. Int J Cancer 79, 111-5.
[0838] [74] Olivero, M., Rizzo, M., Madeddu, R., Casadio, C.,
Pennacchietti, S., Nicotra, M. R., Prat, M., Maggi, G., Arena, N.,
Natali, P. G., Comoglio, P. M. and Di Renzo, M. F. (1996)
Overexpression and activation of hepatocyte growth factor/scatter
factor in human non-small-cell lung carcinomas. Br J Cancer 74,
1862-8.
[0839] [75] Harvey, P., Warn, A., Newman, P., Perry, L. J., Ball,
R. Y. and Warn, R. M. (1996) Immunoreactivity for hepatocyte growth
factor/scatter factor and its receptor, met, in human lung
carcinomas and malignant mesotheliomas. J Pathol 180, 389-94.
[0840] [76] Takanami, I., Tanana, F., Hashizume, T., Kikuchi, K.,
Yamamoto, Y., Yamamoto, T. and Kodaira, S. (1996) Hepatocyte growth
factor and c-Met/hepatocyte growth factor receptor in pulmonary
adenocarcinomas: an evaluation of their expression as prognostic
markers. Oncology 53, 392-7.
[0841] [77] Siegfried, J. M., Weissfeld, L. A., Luketich, J. D.,
Weyant, R. J., Gubish, C. T. and Landreneau, R. J. (1998) The
clinical significance of hepatocyte growth factor for non-small
cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 66, 1915-8.
[0842] [78] Nguyen, P. L., Niehans, G. A., Cherwitz, D. L., Kim, Y.
S. and Ho, S. B. (1996) Membrane-bound (MUC1) and secretory (MUC2,
MUC3, and MUC4) mucin gene expression in human lung cancer. Tumour
Biol 17, 176-92.
[0843] [79] Yu, C. J., Yang, P. C., Shun, C. T., Lee, Y. C., Kuo,
S. H. and Luh, K. T. (1996) Overexpression of MUC5 genes is
associated with early post-operative metastasis in non-small-cell
lung cancer. Int J Cancer 69, 457-65.
[0844] [80] Yu, C. J., Shun, C. T., Yang, P. C., Lee, Y. C., Shew,
J. Y., Kuo, S. H. and Luh, K. T. (1997) Sialomucin expression is
associated with erbB-2 oncoprotein overexpression, early
recurrence, and cancer death in non-small-cell lung cancer
[published erratum appears in Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1997
August; 156(2 Pt 1):677-8]. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 155,
1419-27.
[0845] [81] Jarrard, J. A., Linnoila, R. I., Lee, H., Steinberg, S.
M., Witschi, H. and Szabo, E. (1998) MUC1 is a novel marker for the
type II pneumocyte lineage during lung carcinogenesis. Cancer Res
58, 5582-9.
[0846] [82] Ohgami, A., Tsuda, T., Osaki, T., Mitsudomi, T.,
Morimoto, Y., Higashi, T. and Yasumoto, K. (1999) MUC1 mucin mRNA
expression in stage I lung adenocarcinoma and its association with
early recurrence. Ann Thorac Surg 67, 810-4.
[0847] [83] Bejarano, P. A., Baughman, R. P., Biddinger, P. W.,
Miller, M. A., Fenoglio-Preiser, C., al-Kafaji, B., Di Lauro, R.
and Whitsett, J. A. (1996) Surfactant proteins and thyroid
transcription factor-1 in pulmonary and breast carcinomas. Mod
Pathol 9, 445-52.
[0848] [84] Harlamert, H. A., Mira, J., Bejarano, P. A., Baughman,
R. P., Miller, M. A., Whitsett, J. A. and Yassin, R. (1998) Thyroid
transcription factor-1 and cytokeratins 7 and 20 in pulmonary and
breast carcinoma. Acta Cytol 42, 1382-8.
[0849] [85] Fontanini, G., Vignati, S., Lucchi, M., Mussi, A.,
Calcinai, A., Boldrini, L., Chine, S., Silvestri, V., Angeletti, C.
A., Basolo, F. and Bevilacqua, G. (1997) Neoangiogenesis and p53
protein in lung cancer: their prognostic role and their relation
with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) expression [see
comments]. Br J Cancer 75, 1295-301.
[0850] [86] Shibusa, T., Shijubo, N. and Abe, S. (1998) Tumor
angiogenesis and vascular endothelial growth factor expression in
stage I lung adenocarcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 4, 1483-7.
[0851] [87] Giatromanolaki, A., Koukourakis, M. I., Kakolyris, S.,
Turley, H., O'Byrne, K., Scott, P. A., Pezzella, F., Georgoulias,
V., Harris, A. L. and Gatter, K. C. (1998) Vascular endothelial.
growth factor, wild-type p53, and angiogenesis in early operable
non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res 4, 3017-24.
[0852] [88] Fontanini, G., Boldrini, L., Vignati, S., Chine, S.,
Basolo, F., Silvestri, V., Lucchi, M., Mussi, A., Angeletti, C. A.
and Bevilacqua, G. (1998) Bcl2 and p53 regulate vascular
endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-- mediated angiogenesis in
non-small cell lung carcinoma. Eur J Cancer 34, 718-23.
[0853] [89] Takahama, M., Tsutsumi, M., Tsujiuchi, T., Kido, A.,
Okajima, E., Nezu, K., Tojo, T., Kushibe, K., Kitamura, S. and
Konishi, Y. (1998) Frequent expression of the vascular endothelial
growth factor in human non-small-cell lung cancers. Jpn J Clin
Oncol 28, 176-81.
[0854] [90] Sozzi, G., Miozzo, M., Tagliabue, E., Calderone, C.,
Lombardi, L., Pilotti, S., Pastorino, U., Pierotti, M. A. and Della
Porta, G. (1991) Cytogenetic abnormalities and overexpression of
receptors for growth factors in normal bronchial epithelium and
tumor samples of lung cancer patients. Cancer Res 51, 400-4.
[0855] [91] Volm, M., Efferth, T., Mattern, J. and Wodrich, W.
(1992) Overexpression of c-fos and c-erbB1 encoded proteins in
squamous cell carcinomas of the lung of smokers. Int J Oncol 1,
69-71 1992.
[0856] [92] Wodrich, W. and Volm, M. (1993) Overexpression of
oncoproteins in non-small cell lung carcinomas of smokers.
Carcinogenesis 14, 1121-4.
[0857] [93] Pastorino, U., Sozzi, G., Miozzo, M., Tagliabue, E.,
Pilotti, S. and Pierotti, M. A. (1993) Genetic changes in lung
cancer. J Cell Biochem Suppl 17F, 237-48.
[0858] [94] Gorgoulis, V., Sfikakis, P. P., Karameris, A.,
Papastamatiou, H., Trigidou, R., Veslemes, M., Spandidos, D. A.,
Sfikakis, P. and Jordanoglou, J. (1995) Molecular and
immunohistochemical study of class I growth factor receptors in
squamous cell lung carcinomas. Pathol Res Pract 191, 973-81.
[0859] [95] Rusch, V., Klimstra, D., Linkov, I. and Dmitrovsky, E.
(1995) Aberrant expression of p53 or the epidermal growth factor
receptor is frequent in early bronchial neoplasia and coexpression
precedes squamous cell carcinoma development. Cancer Res 55,
1365-72.
[0860] [96] Rusch, V. W. and Dmitrovsky, E. (1995) Molecular
biologic features of non-small cell lung cancer. Clinical
implications. Chest Surg Clin N Am 5, 39-55.
[0861] [97] Fontanini, G., Vignati, S., Bigini, D., Mussi, A.,
Lucchi, H., Angeletti, C. A., Pingitore, R., Pepe, S., Basolo, F.
and Bevilacqua, G. (1995) Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFr)
expression in non-small cell lung carcinomas correlates with
metastatic involvement of hilar and mediastinal lymph nodes in the
squamous subtype. Eur J Cancer 31A, 178-83.
[0862] [98] Pflug, B. and Djakiew, D. (1996) Expression of the low
affinity nerve growth factor receptor in prostate epithelial cells
negatively regulates nerve growth factor-mediated growth via
induction of apoptosis (Meeting abstract). Proc Annu Meet Am Assoc
Cancer Res 37, A262 1996.
[0863] [99] Rusch, V., Klimstra, D. Venkatraman, E., Langenfeld,
J., Pisters, P. and Dmitrovsky, E. (1996) Overexpression of EGFR
and TGF-alpha is frequent in early stage non-small cell lung
cancer, but does not predict tumor progression (Meeting abstract).
Proc Annu Meet Am Assoc Cancer Res 37, A1314 1996.
[0864] [100] Fujino, S., Enokibori, T., Tezuka, N., Asada, Y.,
Inoue, S., Kato, H. and Mori, A. (1996) A comparison of epidermal
growth factor receptor levels and other prognostic parameters in
non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Cancer 32A, 2070-4.
[0865] [101] Pastorino, U., Andreola, S., Tagliabue, E., Pezzella,
F., Incarbone, M., Sozzi, G., Buyse, M., Menard, S., Pierotti, M.
and Rilke, F. (1997) Immunocytochemical markers in stage I lung
cancer: relevance to prognosis. J Clin Oncol 15, 2858-65.
[0866] [102] Sekine, I., Takami, S., Guang, S. G., Yokose, T.,
Kodama, T., Nishiwaki, Y., Kinoshita, M., Matsumoto, H., Ogura, T.
and Nagai, K. (1998) Role of epidermal growth factor receptor
overexpression, K-ras point mutation and c-myc amplification in the
carcinogenesis of non-small cell lung cancer. Oncol Rep 5,
351-4.
[0867] [103] Pfeiffer, P., Nexo, E., Bentzen, S. M., Clausen, P.
P., Andersen, K., Rose, C. and Nex, E. (1998) Enzyme-linked
immunosorbent assay of epidermal growth factor receptor in lung
cancer: comparisons with immunohistochemistry, clinicopathological
features and prognosis. Br J Cancer 78, 96-9.
[0868] [104] D'Amico, T. A., Massey, M., Hemdon, J. E., 2nd, Moore,
M. B. and Harpole, D. H., Jr. (1999) A biologic risk model for
stage I lung cancer: immunohistochemical analysis of 408 patients
with the use of ten molecular markers. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
117, 736-43.
[0869] [105] Engel, M., Theisinger, B., Seib, T., Seitz, G., Huwer,
H., Zang, K. D., Welter, C. and Dooley, S. (1993) High levels of
nm23-H1 and nm23-H2 messenger RNA in human squamous-cell lung
carcinoma are associated with poor differentiation and advanced
tumor stages. Int J Cancer 55, 375-9.
[0870] [106] Ozeki, Y., Takishima, K. and Mamiya, G. (1994)
Immunohistochemical analysis of nm23/NDP kinase expression in human
lung adenocarcinoma: association with tumor progression in Clara
cell type. Jpn J Cancer Res 85, 840-6.
[0871] [107] Lai, W. W., Wu, M. H., Yan, J. J. and Chen, F. F.
(1996) Immunohistochemical analysis of nm23-H 1 in stage I
non-small cell lung cancer: a useful marker in prediction of
metastases. Ann Thorac Surg 62, 1500-4.
[0872] [108] Gazzeri, S., Brambilla, E., Negoescu, A., Thoraval,
D., Veron, M., Moro, D. and Brambilla, C. (1996) Overexpression of
nucleoside diphosphate/kinase A/nm23-H1 protein in human lung
tumors: association with tumor progression in squamous carcinoma.
Lab Invest 74, 158-67.
[0873] [109] MacKinnon, M., Kerr, K. M., King, G., Kennedy, M. M.,
Cockburn, J. S. and Jeffrey, R. R. (1997) p53, c-erbB-2 and nm23
expression have no prognostic significance in primary pulmonary
adenocarcinoma. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 11, 838-42.
[0874] [110] Bosnar, M. H., Pavelic, K., Krizanac, S., Slobodnjak,
Z. and Pavelic, J. (1997) Squamous cell lung carcinomas: the role
of nm23-H1 gene. J Mol Med 75, 609-13.
[0875] [111] Kawakubo, Y., Sato, Y., Koh, T., Kono, H. and Kameya,
T. (1997) Expression of nm23 protein in pulmonary adenocarcinomas:
inverse correlation to tumor progression. Lung Cancer 17,
103-13.
[0876] [112] Ritter, J. H., Dresler, C. M. and Wick, M. R. (1995)
Expression of bcl-2 protein in stage T1N0M0 non-small cell lung
carcinoma. Hum Pathol 26, 1227-32.
[0877] [113] Kitagawa, Y., Wong, F., Lo, P., Elliott, M., Verburgt,
L. M., Hogg, J. C. and Daya, M. (1996) Overexpression of Bcl-2 and
mutations in p53 and K-ras in resected human non-small cell lung
cancers. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol 15, 45-54.
[0878] [114] Rao, S. K., Krishna, M., Woda, B. A., Savas, L. and
Fraire, A. E. (1996) Immunohistochemical detection of bcl-2 protein
in adenocarcinoma and non-neoplastic cellular compartments of the
lung. Mod Pathol 9, 555-9.
[0879] [115] Boers, J. E., ten Velde, G. P. and Thunnissen, F. B.
(1996) P53 in squamous metaplasia: a marker for risk of respiratory
tract carcinoma. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 153, 411-6.
[0880] [116] Coppola, D., Clarke, M., Landreneau, R., Weyant, R.
J., Cooper, D. and Yousem, S. A. (1996) Bcl-2, p53, CD44, and
CD44v6 isoform expression in neuroendocrine tumors of the lung. Mod
Pathol 9, 484-90.
[0881] [117] Higashiyama, M., Doi, O., Kodama, K., Yokouchi, H. and
Tateishi, R. (1996) Bcl-2 oncoprotein expression is increased
especially in the portion of small cell carcinoma within the
combined type of small cell lung cancer. Tumour Biol 17, 341-4.
[0882] [118] Strauss, G. M. (1997) Prognostic markers in resectable
non-small cell lung cancer. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 11,
409-34.
[0883] [119] Anton, R. C., Brown, R. W., Younes, M., Gondo, M. M.,
Stephenson, M. A. and Cagle, P. T. (1997) Absence of prognostic
significance of bcl-2 immunopositivity in non-small cell lung
cancer: analysis of 427 cases. Hum Pathol 28, 1079-82.
[0884] [120] Ishida, H., Irie, K., Itoh, T., Furukawa, T. and
Tokunaga, O. (1997) The prognostic significance of p53 and bcl-2
expression in lung adenocarcinoma and its correlation with Ki-67
growth fraction. Cancer 80, 1034-45.
[0885] [121] Stefanaki, K., Rontogiannis, D., Vamvouka, C.,
Bolioti, S., Chaniotis, V., Sotsiou, F., Vlychou, M., Delidis, G.,
Kakolyris, S., Georgoulias, V. and Kanavaros, P. (1998)
Immunohistochemical detection of bcl2, p53, mdm2 and p21/wafl
proteins in small-cell lung carcinomas. Anticancer Res 18,
1167-73.
[0886] [122] Brambilla, E., Gazzeri, S., Lantuejoul, S., Coll, J.
L., Moro, D., Negoescu, A. and Brambilla, C. (1998) p53 mutant
immunophenotype and deregulation of p53 transcription pathway
(Bcl2, Bax, and Wafl) in precursor bronchial lesions of lung
cancer. Clin Cancer Res 4, 1609-18.
[0887] [123] Salgia, R. and Skarin, A. T. (1998) Molecular
abnormalities in lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 16, 1207-17.
[0888] [124] Kim, Y. C., Park, K. O., Kern, J. A., Park, C. S.,
Lim, S. C., Jang, A. S. and Yang, J. B. (1998) The interactive
effect of Ras, HER2, P53 and Bcl-2 expression in predicting the
survival of non-small cell lung cancer patients. Lung Cancer 22,
181-90.
[0889] [125] Groeger, A. M., Caputi, M., Esposito, V., De Luca, A.,
Salat, A., Murabito, M., Giordano, G. G., Baldi, F., Giordano, A.
and Wolner, E. (1999) Bcl-2 protein expression correlates with
nodal status in non small cell lung cancer. Anticancer Res 19,
821-4.
[0890] [126] Vargas, S. O., Leslie, K. O., Vacek, P. M., Socinski,
M. A. and Weaver, D. L. (1998) Estrogen-receptor-related protein
p29 in primary nonsmall cell lung carcinoma: pathologic and
prognostic correlations. Cancer 82, 1495-500.
[0891] [127] Higashiyama, M., Doi, O., Kodama, K., Yokouchi, H. and
Tateishi, R. (1994) Retinoblastoma protein expression in lung
cancer: an immunohistochemical analysis. Oncology 51, 544-51.
[0892] [128] Xu, H. J., Quinlan, D. C., Davidson, A. G. and et. al.
(1994) Altered retinoblastoma protein expression and prognosis in
early stage non-small cell lung carcinoma. J. Natl. Cancer Inst.
86, 695-699.
[0893] [129] Lee, J. S., Kalapurakal, S., Ro, J. Y. and Hong, W. K.
(1995) Prognostic significance of retinoblastoma protein expression
in non-small cell lung cancer (Meeting abstract). Proc Annu Meet Am
Assoc Cancer Res 36, A3787 1995.
[0894] [130] Dixon, G., Salisbury, J. and Walker, C. (1995)
Expression of the retinoblastoma protein in normal and dysplastic
bronchial epithelium and lung cancer (Meeting abstract). J Pathol
176, 32A 1995.
[0895] [131] Shapiro, G. I., Edwards, C. D., Kobzik, L., Godleski,
J., Richards, W., Sugarbaker, D. J. and Rollins, B. J. (1995)
Reciprocal Rb inactivation and p16 expression in lung cancer
(Meeting abstract). Proc Annu Meet Am Assoc Cancer Res 36, A164
1995.
[0896] [132] Volm, M. and Stammler, G. (1996) Retinoblastoma (Rb)
protein expression and resistance in squamous cell lung carcinomas.
Anticancer Res 16, 891-4.
[0897] [133] Dosaka-Akita, H., Hu, S. X., Kinoshita, I., Fujino,
M., Harada, M., Kawakami, Y. and Benedict, W. F. (1996) Prognostic
significance of Rb protein expression in non-small cell lung cancer
(NSCLC) (Meeting abstract). Proc Annu Meet Am Assoc Cancer Res 37,
A1401 1996.
[0898] [134] Kinoshita, I., Dosaka-Akita, H., Akie, K., Mishina,
T., Hiroumi, H. and Kawakami, Y. (1996) Significance of abnormal
p161NK4 and RB protein expression in non-small cell lung cancer
(NSCLC) (Meeting abstract). Proc Annu Meet Am Assoc Cancer Res 37,
A3979 1996.
[0899] [135] Kratzke, R. A., Greatens, T. M., Rubins, J. B.,
Maddaus, M. A., Niewoehner, D. E., Niehans, G. A. and Geradts, J.
(1996) Rb and p161NK4a expression in resected non-small cell lung
tumors. Cancer Res 56, 3415-20.
[0900] [136] Sakaguchi, M., Fujii, Y., Hirabayashi, H., Yoon, H.
E., Komoto, Y., Oue, T., Kusafuka, T., Okada, A. and Matsuda, H.
(1996) Inversely correlated expression of p16 and Rb protein in
non-small cell lung cancers: an immunohistochemical study. Int J
Cancer 65, 442-5.
[0901] [137] Xu, H. J., Cagle, P. T., Hu, S. X., Li, J. and
Benedict, W. F. (1996) Altered retinoblastoma and p53 protein
status in non-small cell carcinoma of the lung: potential
synergistic effects on prognosis. Clin. Cancer Res 2, 1169-76
1996.
[0902] [138] Dosaka-Akita, H., Hu, S. X., Fujino, M., Harada, M.,
Kinoshita, I., Xu, H. J., Kuzumaki, N., Kawakami, Y. and Benedict,
W. F. (1997) Altered retinoblastoma protein expression in nonsmall
cell lung cancer: its synergistic effects with altered ras and p53
protein status on prognosis. Cancer 79, 1329-37.
[0903] [139] Cagle, P. T., el-Naggar, A. K., Xu, H. J., Hu, S. X.
and Benedict, W. F. (1997) Differential retinoblastoma protein
expression in neuroendocrine tumors of the lung. Potential
diagnostic implications. Am J Pathol 150, 393-400.
[0904] [140] Kashiwabara, K., Oyama, T., Sano, T., Fukuda, T. and
Nakajima, T. (1998) Correlation between methylation status of the
p16/CDKN2 gene and the expression of p16 and Rb proteins in primary
non-small cell lung cancers. Int J Cancer 79, 215-20.
[0905] [141] Caputi, M., Esposito, V., Groger, A. M., De Luca, A.,
Pacilio, C., Dekan, G., Giordano, G. G., Baldi, F., Wolner, E. and
Giordano, A. (1998) RB growth control evasion in lung cancer.
Anticancer Res 18, 2371-4.
[0906] [142] Tamura, A., Matsubara, O., Hirokawa, K. and Aoki, N.
(1993) Detection of thrombomodulin in human lung cancer cells. Am J
Pathol 142, 79-85.
[0907] [143] Tamura, A., Komatsu, H., Hebisawa, A., Kurashima, A.,
Mori, M. and Katayama, T. (1996) Is thrombomodulin useful as a
tumor marker of a lung cancer? Lung Cancer 15, 189-95.
[0908] [144] Collins, C. L., Ordonez, N. G., Schaefer, R., Cook, C.
D., Xie, S. S., Granger, J., Hsu, P. L., Fink, L. and Hsu, S. M.
(1992) Thrombomodulin expression in malignant pleural mesothelioma
and pulmonary adenocarcinoma. Am J Pathol 141, 827-33.
[0909] [145] Hamatake, M., Ishida, T., Mitsudomi, T., Akazawa, K.
and Sugimachi, K. (1996) Prognostic value and clinicopathological
correlation of thrombomodulin in squamous cell carcinoma of the
human lung. Clin Cancer Res 2, 763-6 1996.
[0910] [146]. Ordonez, N. G. (1997) Value of thrombomodulin
immunostaining in the diagnosis of mesothelioma. Histopathology 31,
25-30.
[0911] [147] Tolnay, E., Wiethege, T. and Muller, K. M. (1997)
Expression and localization of thrombomodulin in preneoplastic
bronchial lesions and in lung cancer. Virchows Arch 430,
209-12.
[0912] [148] Bohm, M., Totzeck, B. and Wieland, I. (1994)
Differences of E-cadherin expression levels and patterns in human
lung cancer. Ann Hematol 68, 81-3.
[0913] [149] Bohm, M., Totzeck, B., Birchmeier, W. and Wieland, I.
(1994) Differences of E-cadherin expression levels and patterns in
primary and metastatic human lung cancer. Clin Exp Metastasis 12,
55-62.
[0914] [150] Peralta Soler, A., Knudsen, K. A., Jaurand, M. C.,
Johnson, K. R., Wheelock, M. J., Klein-Szanto, A. J. and Salazar,
H. (1995) The differential expression of N-cadherin and E-cadherin
distinguishes pleural mesotheliomas from lung adenocarcinomas [see
comments]. Hum Pathol 26, 1363-9.
[0915] [151] Han, A. C., Peralta-Soler, A., Knudsen, K. A.,
Wheelock, M. J., Johnson, K. R. and Salazar, H. (1997) Differential
expression of N-cadherin in pleural mesotheliomas and E-cadherin in
lung adenocarcinomas in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues
[see comments]. Hum Pathol 28, 641-5.
[0916] [152] Weynants, P., Lethe, B., Brasseur, F., Marchand, M.
and Boon, T. (1994) Expression of mage genes by non-small-cell lung
carcinomas. Int J Cancer 56, 826-9.
[0917] [153] Shichijo, S., Hayashi, A., Takamori, S., Tsunosue, R.,
Hoshino, T., Sakata, M., Kuramoto, T., Oizumi, K. and Itoh, K.
(1995) Detection of MAGE-4 protein in lung cancers. Int J Cancer
64, 158-65.
[0918] [154] Sakata, M. (1996) Expression of MAGE gene family in
lung cancers. Kurume Med J 43, 55-61.
[0919] [155] Fischer, C., Gudat, F., Stulz, P., Noppen, C.,
Schaefer, C., Zajac, P., Trutmann, M., Kocher, T., Zuber, M.,
Harder, F., Heberer, M. and Spagnoli, G. C. (1997) High expression
of MAGE-3 protein in squamous-cell lung carcinoma [letter]. Int J
Cancer 71, 1119-21.
[0920] [156] Gotoh, K., Yatabe, Y., Sugiura, T., Takagi, K., Ogawa,
M., Takahashi, T. and Mitsudomi, T. (1998) Frequency of MAGE-3 gene
expression in HLA-A2 positive patients with non-small cell lung
cancer. Lung Cancer 20, 117-25.
[0921] [157] Uchiyama, B., Saijo, Y., Kumano, N., Abe, T.,
Fujimura, S., Ohkuda, K., Handa, M., Satoh, K. and Nukiwa, T.
(1997) Expression of nucleolar protein p120 in human lung cancer:
difference in histological types as a marker for proliferation.
Clin Cancer Res 3, 1873-7.
[0922] [158] Singh, G., Scheithauer, B. W. and Katyal, S. L. (1986)
The pathobiologic features of carcinomas of type II pneumocytes. An
immunocytologic study. Cancer 57, 994-9.
[0923] [159] Mizutani, Y., Nakajima, T., Morinaga, S., Gotoh, M.,
Shimosato, Y., Akino, T. and Suzuki, A. (1988) Immunohistochemical
localization of pulmonary surfactant apoproteins in various lung
tumors. Special reference to nonmucus producing lung
adenocarcinomas. Cancer 61, 532-7.
[0924] [160] Noguchi, M., Nakajima, T., Hirohashi, S., Akiba, T.
and Shimosato, Y. (1989) Immunohistochemical distinction of
malignant mesothelioma from pulmonary adenocarcinoma with
anti-surfactant apoprotein, anti-Lewisa, and anti-Tn antibodies.
Hum Pathol 20, 53-7.
[0925] [161] Linnoila, R. I., Jensen, S. M., Steinberg, S. M.,
Mulshine, J. L., Eggleston, J. C. and Gazdar, A. F. (1992)
Peripheral airway cell marker expression in non-small cell lung
carcinoma. Association with distinct clinicopathologic features
[see comments]. Am J Clin Pathol 97, 233-43.
[0926] [162] Shijubo, N., Tsutahara, S., Hirasawa, M., Takahashi,
H., Honda, Y., Suzuki, A., Kuroki, Y. and Akino, T. (1992)
Pulmonary surfactant protein A in pleural effusions. Cancer 69,
2905-9.
[0927] [163] Shijubo, N., Honda, Y., Fujishima, T., Takahashi, H.,
Kodama, T., Kuroki, Y., Akino, T. and Abe, S. (1995) Lung
surfactant protein-A and carcinoembryonic antigen in pleural
effusions due to lung adenocarcinoma and malignant mesothelioma.
Eur Respir J 8, 403-6.
[0928] [164] Nicholson, A. G., McCormick, C. J., Shimosato, Y.,
Butcher, D. N. and Sheppard, M. N. (1995) The value of PE-10, a
monoclonal antibody against pulmonary surfactant, in distinguishing
primary and metastatic lung tumours. Histopathology 27, 57-60.
[0929] [165] Khoor, A., Whitsett, J. A., Stahlman, M. T. and
Halter, S. A. (1997) Expression of surfactant protein B precursor
and surfactant protein B mNA in adenocarcinoma of the lung. Mod
Pathol 10, 62-7.
[0930] [166] Saitoh, H., Shimura, S., Fushimi, T., Okayama, H. and
Shirato, K. (1997) Detection of surfactant protein-A gene
transcript in the cells from pleural effusion for the diagnosis of
lung adenocarcinoma. Am J Med 103, 400-4.
[0931] [167] Grohs et al., Acta Cytologica, 1996, 40(1):26-30.
[0932] [168] Grohs et al., Acta Cytologica, 1997,
41(1):144-152.
* * * * *
References