Cytoreductive surgery is the cornerstone of ovarian cancer (OVCA) treatment. Detractors of initial maximal surgical effort argue that aggressive tumor biology will dictate survival, not the surgical effort. We investigated the role of biology in achieving optimal cytoreduction in serous OVCA using microarray gene expression analysis.
For the initial model, we used a gene expression signature from a microarray expression analysis of 124 women with serous OVCA, defining optimal cytoreduction as removal of all disease greater than 1 cm (with 64 women having optimal and 60 suboptimal cytoreduction). We then applied this model to 2 independent data sets: the Australian Ovarian Cancer Study (AOCS; 190 samples) and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA; 468 samples). We performed a second analysis, defining optimal cytoreduction as removal of all disease to microscopic residual, using data from AOCS to create the gene signature and validating results in TCGA data set.
Of the 12,718 genes included in the initial analysis, 58 predicted accuracy of cytoreductive surgery 69% of the time (P = 0.005). The performance of this classifier, measured by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, was 73%. When applied to TCGA and AOCS, accuracy was 56% (P = 0.16) and 62% (P = 0.01), respectively, with performance at 57% and 65%, respectively. In the second analysis, 220 genes predicted accuracy of cytoreductive surgery in the AOCS set 74% of the time, with performance of 73%. When these results were validated in TCGA set, accuracy was 57% (P = 0.31) and performance was at 62%.
Gene expression data, used as a proxy of tumor biology, do not predict accurately nor consistently the ability to perform optimal cytoreductive surgery. Other factors, including surgical effort, may also explain part of the model. Additional studies integrating more biological and clinical data may improve the prediction model.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 April 2016.
All research outputs
#15,339,713
of 22,816,807 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Gynecological Cancer
#1,597
of 3,128 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,961
of 263,437 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Gynecological Cancer
#20
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,816,807 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,128 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,437 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
