Search

Robustly predicting outcome for cancer patients from gene expression is an important challenge on the road to better personalized treatment. Network-based outcome predictors (NOPs), which considers the cellular wiring diagram in the classification, hold much promise to improve performance, stability and interpretability of identified marker genes. Problematically, reports on the efficacy of NOPs are conflicting and for instance suggest that utilizing random networks performs on par to networks that describe biologically relevant interactions. In this paper we turn the prediction problem around: instead of using a given biological network in the NOP, we aim to identify the network of genes that truly improves outcome prediction. To this end, we propose SyNet, a gene network constructed ab initio from synergistic gene pairs derived from survival-labelled gene expression data. To obtain SyNet, we evaluate synergy for all 69 million pairwise combinations of genes resulting in a network that is specific to the dataset and phenotype under study and can be used to in a NOP model. We evaluated SyNet and 11 other networks on a compendium dataset of >4000 survival-labelled breast cancer samples. For this purpose, we used cross-study validation which more closely emulates real world application of these outcome predictors. We find that SyNet is the only network that truly improves performance, stability and interpretability in several existing NOPs. We show that SyNet overlaps significantly with existing gene networks, and can be confidently predicted (~85% AUC) from graph-topological descriptions of these networks, in particular the breast tissue-specific network. Due to its data-driven nature, SyNet is not biased to well-studied genes and thus facilitates post-hoc interpretation. We find that SyNet is highly enriched for known breast cancer genes and genes related to e.g. histological grade and tamoxifen resistance, suggestive of a role in determining breast cancer outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Anxiety and depression can be heightened among individuals living with chronic diseases. Identifying these individuals is necessary for ensuring they are provided with adequate support. Traditional tools such as clinical interviews or symptom checklists are not always feasible to implement in practice. Robust single-item questions may be a useful alternative. This study aimed to measure agreement, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of a single-item question about anxiety and depression compared to the widely used Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). A cross-sectional survey of 2,811 people with cancer attending 19 treatment centres in Australia. Patients were approached in the waiting room prior to an outpatient clinic appointment and invited to complete a pen and paper survey. Participants completed the HADS as well as 2 single-items asking if they have felt anxious or depressed in the last week. The single-items for anxiety and depression each demonstrated moderate levels of sensitivity (0.78 for anxiety; 0.63 for depression) and specificity (0.75 for anxiety; 0.84 for depression) against the relevant HADS subscale. Positive predictive values were moderate (0.53 for anxiety and 0.52 for depression) while negative predictive values were high for both single-item questions (0.90 for anxiety and 0.89 for depression). The single-item measures of anxiety and depression may be useful to rule out individuals who do not require further psychological assessment or intervention for anxiety and depression. Further research is needed to explore whether these findings generalise to other chronic diseases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Effective symptom management is a critical component of cancer treatment. Computational tools that predict the course and severity of these symptoms have the potential to assist oncology clinicians to personalize the patient’s treatment regimen more efficiently and provide more aggressive and timely interventions. Three common and inter-related symptoms in cancer patients are depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbance. In this paper, we elaborate on the efficiency of Support Vector Regression (SVR) and Non-linear Canonical Correlation Analysis by Neural Networks (n-CCA) to predict the severity of the aforementioned symptoms between two different time points during a cycle of chemotherapy (CTX). Our results demonstrate that these two methods produced equivalent results for all three symptoms. These types of predictive models can be used to identify high risk patients, educate patients about their symptom experience, and improve the timing of pre-emptive and personalized symptom management interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Preclinical evidence suggests statins may have anti-tumor properties. Large observational studies are also consistent with improved survival and cancer-specific outcomes among cancer patients on statins. We sought to evaluate the randomized controlled trials of statins in addition to usual anti-cancer therapy. Methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Papers First and Clinicaltrials.gov was performed from inception through to July 4, 2017 to identify randomized clinical trials that investigated statin therapy in cancer patients. Our primary outcome was overall survival and our secondary outcome was progression-free survival. We calculated summary hazard ratio’s (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on random-effects models using aggregate data. PROSPERO (CRD42017065503). Results: Ten studies with 1,881 individuals were included with 1,572 deaths and a median follow-up of 23 months. All trials included patients with advanced (stage 3 or higher) disease. There was minimal between-study statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 1.8%, for OS; I2 = 0%, for PFS). The pooled HR for overall survival in patients randomized to statins plus standard anti-cancer therapy versus standard therapy alone was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.85 to 1.04). In the 9 studies that reported progression-free survival (1,798 participants), the pooled HR for statin plus standard therapy versus standard therapy alone was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.87 to 1.07). Conclusions: In patients with advanced cancer and a prognosis <2 years, the addition of statins to standard anti-cancer therapy does not appear to improve overall survival or progression-free survival. Future research should assess if cancer patients with better prognosis benefit from longer-term statin therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evidence is growing that low-dose aspirin used as an adjuvant treatment of cancer is associated with an increased survival and a reduction in metastatic spread. We therefore extended up to August 2017 an earlier systematic search and meta-analyses of published studies of low-dose aspirin taken by patients with a diagnosis of cancer. Methods: Searches were completed in Medline and Embase to August 2017 using a pre-defined search strategy to identify reports of relevant studies. References in all the selected papers were scanned. Two reviewers independently applied pre-determined eligibility criteria and extracted data on cause-specific cancer deaths, overall mortality and the occurrence of metastatic spread. Meta-analyses were then conducted for different cancers and heterogeneity and publication bias assessed. Sensitivity analyses and attempts to reduce heterogeneity were conducted. Results: Analyses of 29 studies reported since an earlier review up to April 2015 are presented in this report, and these are then pooled with the 42 studies in our earlier publication. Overall meta-analyses of the 71 studies are presented, based on a total of over 120 thousand patients taking aspirin. Ten of the studies also give evidence on the incidence of metastatic cancer spread. There are now twenty-nine observational studies describing colorectal cancer (CRC) and post-diagnostic aspirin. Pooling the estimates of reduction by aspirin which are reported as hazard ratios (HR), gives an overall HR for aspirin and CRC mortality 0.72 (95% CI 0.64–0.80). Fourteen observational studies have reported on aspirin and breast cancer mortality and pooling those that report the association with aspirin as a hazard ratio gives HR 0.69 (0.53–0.90). Sixteen studies report on aspirin and prostate cancer mortality and a pooled estimate yields an HR of 0.87 (95% CI 0.73–1.05). Data from 12 reports relating to other cancers are also listed. Ten studies give evidence of a reduction in metastatic spread; four give a pooled HR 0.31 (95% CI 0.18, 0.54) and five studies which reported odds ratio of metastatic spread give OR 0.79 (0.66 to 0.95). Conclusion: Being almost entirely from observational studies, the evidence of benefit from aspirin is limited. There is heterogeneity between studies and the results are subject to important biases, only some of which can be identified. Nevertheless, the evidence would seem to merit wide discussion regarding whether or not it is adequate to justify the recommendation of low-dose therapeutic aspirin, and if it is, for which cancers? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Low-dose aspirin has been shown to reduce the incidence of cancer, but its role in the treatment of cancer is uncertain. Objectives: We conducted a systematic search of the scientific literature on aspirin taken by patients following a diagnosis of cancer, together with appropriate meta-analyses. Methods: Searches were completed in Medline and Embase in December 2015 using a pre-defined search strategy. References and abstracts of all the selected papers were scanned and expert colleagues were contacted for additional studies. Two reviewers applied pre-determined eligibility criteria (cross-sectional, cohort and controlled studies, and aspirin taken after a diagnosis of cancer), assessed study quality and extracted data on cancer cause-specific deaths, overall mortality and incidence of metastases. Random effects meta-analyses and planned sub-group analyses were completed separately for observational and experimental studies. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed in sensitivity analyses and appropriate omissions made. Papers were examined for any reference to bleeding and authors of the papers were contacted and questioned. Results: Five reports of randomised trials were identified, together with forty two observational studies: sixteen on colorectal cancer, ten on breast and ten on prostate cancer mortality. Pooling of eleven observational reports of the effect of aspirin on cause-specific mortality from colon cancer, after the omission of one report identified on the basis of sensitivity analyses, gave a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.76 (95% CI 0.66, 0.88) with reduced heterogeneity (P = 0.04). The cause specific mortality in five reports of patients with breast cancer showed significant heterogeneity (P<0.0005) but the omission of one outlying study reduced heterogeneity (P = 0.19) and led to an HR = 0.87 (95% CI 0.69, 1.09). Heterogeneity between nine studies of prostate cancer was significant, but again, the omission of one study led to acceptable homogeneity (P = 0.26) and an overall HR = 0.89 (95% CI 0.79–0.99). Six single studies of other cancers suggested reductions in cause specific mortality by aspirin, and in five the effect is statistically significant. There were no significant differences between the pooled HRs for the three main cancers and after the omission of three reports already identified in sensitivity analyses heterogeneity was removed and revealed an overall HR of 0.83 (95% CI 0.76–0.90). A mutation of PIK3CA was present in about 20% of patients, and appeared to explain most of the reduction in colon cancer mortality by aspirin. Data were not adequate to examine the importance of this or any other marker in the effect of aspirin in the other cancers. On bleeding attributable to aspirin two reports stated that there had been no side effect or bleeding attributable to aspirin. Authors on the other reports were written to and 21 replied stating that no data on bleeding were available. Conclusions and Implications: The study highlights the need for randomised trials of aspirin treatment in a variety of cancers. While these are awaited there is an urgent need for evidence from observational studies of aspirin and the less common cancers, and for more evidence of the relevance of possible bio-markers of the aspirin effect on a wide variety of cancers. In the meantime it is urged that patients in whom a cancer is diagnosed should be given details of this research, together with its limitations, to enable each to make an informed decision as to whether or not to take low-dose aspirin. Systematic Review Protocol Number: CRD42015014145 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How can we predict the occurrence of acute kidney injury (AKI) in cancer patients based on machine learning with serum creatinine data? Given irregular and heterogeneous clinical data, how can we make the most of it for accurate AKI prediction? AKI is a common and significant complication in cancer patients, and correlates with substantial morbidity and mortality. Since no effective treatment for AKI still exists, it is important to take timely preventive measures. While several approaches have been proposed for predicting AKI, their scope and applicability are limited as they either assume regular data measured over a short hospital stay, or do not fully utilize heterogeneous data. In this paper, we provide an AKI prediction model with a greater applicability, which relaxes the constraints of existing approaches, and fully utilizes irregular and heterogeneous data for learning the model. In a cohort of 21,022 cancer patients who were registered into Korea Central Cancer Registry (KCCR) in Seoul National University Hospital between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2013, our method achieves 0.7892 precision, 0.7506 recall, and 0.7576 F-measure in predicting whether a patient will develop AKI during the next 14 days. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A closer association has been found between the microRNA-146a rs2910164 polymorphism and the risk of head and neck carcinoma in some molecular epidemiological studies. Recently two meta-analyses were performed to explore the relationship between miRNA-146a polymorphisms and the susceptibility of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN); however, they yielded conflicting results in susceptibility regarding ethnic variations. Hence, the present study was performed to explain the relationship between the miRNA-146a rs2910164 polymorphism and the risk of SCCHN development of Chinese patients. We retrieved databases and screened eligible papers up to March 10, 2017 and then we extracted the essential data. The subgroup analyses were also performed based on the tumor site, region, and genotyping means. Crude odds ratios (OR) at 95% confidence intervals (CI) were chosen to describe the strength of the association. As a result, 6 publications were included in our study which involved 8 independent case-control studies. A significant association was found between miR-146a rs2910164 polymorphisms and the risk of SCCHN in Chinese patients according to the overall data [CC+CG vs. GG: OR = 1.13; 95%CI = 1.00–1.29; CC vs. GG: OR = 1.19; 95%CI = 1.03–1.38]. According to the subgroup analysis based on tumor site, the risk of cancer was significantly increased among laryngeal cancer (dominant model: OR = 1.76, 95%CI = 1.26~2.46, P = 0.001; homozygote model: OR = 1.83, 95%CI = 1.25~2.67, P = 0.002) and nasopharyngeal carcinoma (homozygote model: OR = 1.41, 95%CI = 1.05~1.90, P = 0.022). In summary, variant alleles of miR-146a rs2910164 alleles may have an association with the increased risk of SCCHN in Chinese patients, and these associations differed based on tumor site. Further studies including a larger sample size will be necessary to clarify these results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the scientific literature, spin refers to reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results and mislead readers so that results are viewed in a more favourable light. The presence of spin in biomedical research can negatively impact the development of further studies, clinical practice, and health policies. This systematic review aims to explore the nature and prevalence of spin in the biomedical literature. We searched MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and hand searched reference lists for all reports that included the measurement of spin in the biomedical literature for at least 1 outcome. Two independent coders extracted data on the characteristics of reports and their included studies and all spin-related outcomes. Results were grouped inductively into themes by spin-related outcome and are presented as a narrative synthesis. We used meta-analyses to analyse the association of spin with industry sponsorship of research. We included 35 reports, which investigated spin in clinical trials, observational studies, diagnostic accuracy studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. The nature of spin varied according to study design. The highest (but also greatest) variability in the prevalence of spin was present in trials. Some of the common practices used to spin results included detracting from statistically nonsignificant results and inappropriately using causal language. Source of funding was hypothesised by a few authors to be a factor associated with spin; however, results were inconclusive, possibly due to the heterogeneity of the included papers. Further research is needed to assess the impact of spin on readers’ decision-making. Editors and peer reviewers should be familiar with the prevalence and manifestations of spin in their area of research in order to ensure accurate interpretation and dissemination of research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: LncRNA CCAT1 is significantly overexpressed in various types of cancers, suggesting that it might be associated with prognosis and clinicopathological features in patients with cancer. Methods: A comprehensive search was performed in Pubmed, Web of Science, OVID and CNKI databases. We also retrieved articles from other sources, such as retrieving from the reference lists of relevant articles. Eligible studies were included based on defined exclusion and inclusion criteria to perform a meta-analysis. STATA 14.0 was used to estimate pooled hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI), the heterogeneity among studies and publication bias to judge the prognostic value. Results: A total of 1587 patients from 11 eligible studies were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed that high expression level of CCAT1 was significantly associated with shorter overall survival in cancer patients (HR 2.335, 95% CI:1.551–3.517); in the subgroup analysis, region (China or UK), sample size (more or less than 100), type of cancer (digestive or non-digestive disease) and paper quality (score more or less than 7) did not alter the association between CCAT1 expression and cancer prognosis but preoperative treatment did. And CCAT1 expression was an independent prognostic marker for overall survival in patients with cancer (pooled HR 2.195, 95%CI:1.316–3.664) using Cox multivariate analyses. The clinicopathological parameters analysis further showed that increased expression level of CCAT1 was correlated with tumor size, lymph node metastasis, TNM stage, distant metastasis, microvascular invasion and capsular formation in relevant cancers. Conclusions: The meta-analysis results from present study suggested that increased expression level of CCAT1 was associated with poor prognosis and can serve as an independent biomarker. And the expression level of CCAT1 was associated with clinicopathological features in relevant cancers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Colorectal cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer deaths in both sexes in the world. Improvement of existing therapy modalities and implementing new ones in order to improve survival of patients with colorectal cancer represents a great challenge for medicine. The aim of this paper was to assess the impact that adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy has on survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, compared to the use of chemotherapy alone. Methods: Hazard ratios (HRs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined from the studies and pooled. Two-sided p values were reported and considered to indicate statistical significance if less than 0.05. Results: A total of 12 studies that meet the inclusion criteria were identified in the literature search, 3 phase II studies and 9 phase III studies. Based on the random effects meta-analysis, a statistically significant improvement was identified for both overall survival (HR = 0.84; 95% CI: 0.74–0.94; p = 0.003) and progression free survival (HR = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.55–0.73; p<0.00001) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer when bevacizumab was added to chemotherapy, compared to chemotherapy treatment alone. Conclusion: The findings of this meta analysis confirm the benefit of adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy in terms of survival and progression free survival, but the magnitude of this effect is not consistent throughout the included studies. This suggests the need for further research of interaction of bevacizumab with chemotherapeutic agents as well as recognition of patients’ characteristics important for the treatment selection criteria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]