There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.
Abstract
General studies of microarray gene-expression profiling have been undertaken to predict
cancer outcome. Knowledge of this gene-expression profile or molecular signature should
improve treatment of patients by allowing treatment to be tailored to the severity
of the disease. We reanalysed data from the seven largest published studies that have
attempted to predict prognosis of cancer patients on the basis of DNA microarray analysis.
The standard strategy is to identify a molecular signature (ie, the subset of genes
most differentially expressed in patients with different outcomes) in a training set
of patients and to estimate the proportion of misclassifications with this signature
on an independent validation set of patients. We expanded this strategy (based on
unique training and validation sets) by using multiple random sets, to study the stability
of the molecular signature and the proportion of misclassifications.
The list of genes identified as predictors of prognosis was highly unstable; molecular
signatures strongly depended on the selection of patients in the training sets. For
all but one study, the proportion misclassified decreased as the number of patients
in the training set increased. Because of inadequate validation, our chosen studies
published overoptimistic results compared with those from our own analyses. Five of
the seven studies did not classify patients better than chance.
The prognostic value of published microarray results in cancer studies should be considered
with caution. We advocate the use of validation by repeated random sampling.