IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/0050232.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ovarian Carcinoma Subtypes Are Different Diseases: Implications for Biomarker Studies

Author

Listed:
  • Martin Köbel
  • Steve E Kalloger
  • Niki Boyd
  • Steven McKinney
  • Erika Mehl
  • Chana Palmer
  • Samuel Leung
  • Nathan J Bowen
  • Diana N Ionescu
  • Ashish Rajput
  • Leah M Prentice
  • Dianne Miller
  • Jennifer Santos
  • Kenneth Swenerton
  • C Blake Gilks
  • David Huntsman

Abstract

Background: Although it has long been appreciated that ovarian carcinoma subtypes (serous, clear cell, endometrioid, and mucinous) are associated with different natural histories, most ovarian carcinoma biomarker studies and current treatment protocols for women with this disease are not subtype specific. With the emergence of high-throughput molecular techniques, distinct pathogenetic pathways have been identified in these subtypes. We examined variation in biomarker expression rates between subtypes, and how this influences correlations between biomarker expression and stage at diagnosis or prognosis. Methods and Findings: In this retrospective study we assessed the protein expression of 21 candidate tissue-based biomarkers (CA125, CRABP-II, EpCam, ER, F-Spondin, HE4, IGF2, K-Cadherin, Ki-67, KISS1, Matriptase, Mesothelin, MIF, MMP7, p21, p53, PAX8, PR, SLPI, TROP2, WT1) in a population-based cohort of 500 ovarian carcinomas that was collected over the period from 1984 to 2000. The expression of 20 of the 21 biomarkers differs significantly between subtypes, but does not vary across stage within each subtype. Survival analyses show that nine of the 21 biomarkers are prognostic indicators in the entire cohort but when analyzed by subtype only three remain prognostic indicators in the high-grade serous and none in the clear cell subtype. For example, tumor proliferation, as assessed by Ki-67 staining, varies markedly between different subtypes and is an unfavourable prognostic marker in the entire cohort (risk ratio [RR] 1.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2%–2.4%) but is not of prognostic significance within any subtype. Prognostic associations can even show an inverse correlation within the entire cohort, when compared to a specific subtype. For example, WT1 is more frequently expressed in high-grade serous carcinomas, an aggressive subtype, and is an unfavourable prognostic marker within the entire cohort of ovarian carcinomas (RR 1.7, 95% CI 1.2%–2.3%), but is a favourable prognostic marker within the high-grade serous subtype (RR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3%–0.8%). Conclusions: The association of biomarker expression with survival varies substantially between subtypes, and can easily be overlooked in whole cohort analyses. To avoid this effect, each subtype within a cohort should be analyzed discretely. Ovarian carcinoma subtypes are different diseases, and these differences should be reflected in clinical research study design and ultimately in the management of ovarian carcinoma. David Huntsman and colleagues describe the associations between biomarker expression patterns and survival in different ovarian cancer subtypes. They suggest that the management of ovarian cancer should reflect differences between these subtypes. :

Suggested Citation

  • Martin Köbel & Steve E Kalloger & Niki Boyd & Steven McKinney & Erika Mehl & Chana Palmer & Samuel Leung & Nathan J Bowen & Diana N Ionescu & Ashish Rajput & Leah M Prentice & Dianne Miller & Jennifer, 2008. "Ovarian Carcinoma Subtypes Are Different Diseases: Implications for Biomarker Studies," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(12), pages 1-1, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:0050232
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050232
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050232
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050232&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050232?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Aline Talhouk & Stefan Kommoss & Robertson Mackenzie & Martin Cheung & Samuel Leung & Derek S Chiu & Steve E Kalloger & David G Huntsman & Stephanie Chen & Maria Intermaggio & Jacek Gronwald & Fong C , 2016. "Single-Patient Molecular Testing with NanoString nCounter Data Using a Reference-Based Strategy for Batch Effect Correction," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-18, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:0050232. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.