Back

Improving personalized prediction of cancer prognoses with clonal evolution models

Tao, Y.; Rajaraman, A.; Cui, X.; Cui, Z.; Eaton, J.; Kim, H.; Ma, J.; Schwartz, R.

2019-09-18 cancer biology
10.1101/761510 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Cancer occurs via an accumulation of somatic genomic alterations in a process of clonal evolution. There has been intensive study of potential causal mutations driving cancer development and progression. However, much recent evidence suggests that tumor evolution is normally driven by a variety of mechanisms of somatic hypermutability, known as mutator phenotypes, which act in different combinations or degrees in different cancers. Here we explore the question of how and to which degree different mutator phenotypes act in a cancer predict its future progression. We develop a computational paradigm using evolutionary tree inference (tumor phylogeny) algorithms to derive features quantifying single-tumor mutational preferences, followed by a machine learning frame-work to identify key features predictive of progression. We build phylogenies tracing the evolution of subclones of cells in tumor tissues using a variety of somatic genomic alterations, including single nucleotide variations, copy number alterations, and structural variations. We demonstrate that mutation preference features derived from the phylogenies are predictive of clinical outcomes of cancer progression - overall survival and disease-free survival - based on the analyses on breast invasive carcinoma, lung adenocarcinoma, and lung squamous cell carcinoma. We further show that mutational phenotypes have predictive power even after accounting for traditional clinical and driver-centric predictors of progression. These results confirm the power of mutational phenotypes as an independent class of predictive biomarkers and suggest a strategy for enhancing the predictive power of conventional clinical or driver-centric genomic features.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.