Back

A pan-cancer benchmark of integrated ferroptosis, cuproptosis and disulfidptosis prognostic signatures

Demir, A. Y.; Yasar, E.

2026-06-30 bioinformatics
10.64898/2026.06.25.734481 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Integrated prognostic signatures combining ferroptosis, cuproptosis, and disulfidptosis are increasingly reported in oncology as advances in risk stratification, yet their added value over simpler pathway-specific or proliferation-related models remains unclear. Here, we developed an integrated regulated cell-death signature and evaluated it through an adversarial pan-cancer benchmark. Using the TCGA pan-cancer cohort comprising 9,808 tumours across 33 cancer types, we curated 118 genes associated with the three cell-death programmes, characterised inter-pathway crosstalk, and derived a 26-gene LASSO-Cox risk signature. The model showed reproducible prognostic performance across cancers, with a pan-cancer concordance index of 0.573 (95% CI, 0.552-0.594), and was independently validated in METABRIC and CGGA cohorts, remaining significant after adjustment for standard clinical variables. However, benchmarking revealed that the integrated signature, although superior to size-matched random gene sets (empirical p < 0.001), did not outperform a ferroptosis-only model (DeLong p = 0.81), indicating no measurable gain from pathway integration. Moreover, much of the prognostic signal reflected tumour proliferation rather than regulated cell death. After adjustment for the proliferation meta-signature (meta-PCNA), ferroptosis performance declined from 0.573 to 0.504, while the integrated model decreased to 0.554. High-risk tumours were more sensitive to anti-proliferative drugs, and the risk score was most strongly associated with E2F, MYC, and G2M target programmes. The signature stratified prognosis but did not predict immune-checkpoint blockade response in IMvigor210 (AUC {approx} 0.50). Importantly, the underlying biology was not merely a modelling artefact. Signature genes showed concordance with protein abundance in CPTAC cohorts, and the three cell-death programmes co-varied within individual malignant cells, with correlations ranging from {rho} = 0.46 to 0.66. Overall, our findings indicate that integrated multi-death signatures are reproducible and biologically grounded, yet prognostically redundant and substantially confounded by proliferation. This study provides a cautionary benchmark for the rapidly expanding use of composite regulated cell-death signatures in cancer prognosis.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 15%
12.1%
2
npj Precision Oncology
53 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.0%
3
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 10%
6.8%
4
Molecular Oncology
55 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.8%
5
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 28%
5.6%
6
Genome Medicine
183 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
4.4%
7
Briefings in Bioinformatics
354 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.3%
8
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 11%
2.7%
50% of probability mass above
9
Science Advances
1243 papers in training set
Top 13%
2.7%
10
Cell Reports Medicine
153 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
11
Frontiers in Immunology
638 papers in training set
Top 5%
2.2%
12
npj Systems Biology and Applications
125 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.0%
13
Communications Biology
993 papers in training set
Top 13%
1.8%
14
npj Breast Cancer
23 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
15
Cancer Research Communications
51 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.8%
16
International Journal of Cancer
49 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.4%
17
NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics
242 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
18
Neuro-Oncology
36 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
19
Cancer Research
130 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
20
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
242 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.1%
21
JCI Insight
277 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.1%
22
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 29%
1.1%
23
Cancer Cell
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
24
Bioinformatics
1204 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.9%
25
Cancer Letters
35 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
26
Frontiers in Oncology
103 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
27
BMC Bioinformatics
457 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
28
JCO Precision Oncology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
29
Frontiers in Bioinformatics
49 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
30
Cell Systems
201 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%