IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1008720.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of between-tissue differences on pan-cancer predictions of drug sensitivity

Author

Listed:
  • John P Lloyd
  • Matthew B Soellner
  • Sofia D Merajver
  • Jun Z Li

Abstract

Increased availability of drug response and genomics data for many tumor cell lines has accelerated the development of pan-cancer prediction models of drug response. However, it is unclear how much between-tissue differences in drug response and molecular characteristics may contribute to pan-cancer predictions. Also unknown is whether the performance of pan-cancer models could vary by cancer type. Here, we built a series of pan-cancer models using two datasets containing 346 and 504 cell lines, each with MEK inhibitor (MEKi) response and mRNA expression, point mutation, and copy number variation data, and found that, while the tissue-level drug responses are accurately predicted (between-tissue ρ = 0.88–0.98), only 5 of 10 cancer types showed successful within-tissue prediction performance (within-tissue ρ = 0.11–0.64). Between-tissue differences make substantial contributions to the performance of pan-cancer MEKi response predictions, as exclusion of between-tissue signals leads to a decrease in Spearman’s ρ from a range of 0.43–0.62 to 0.30–0.51. In practice, joint analysis of multiple cancer types usually has a larger sample size, hence greater power, than for one cancer type; and we observe that higher accuracy of pan-cancer prediction of MEKi response is almost entirely due to the sample size advantage. Success of pan-cancer prediction reveals how drug response in different cancers may invoke shared regulatory mechanisms despite tissue-specific routes of oncogenesis, yet predictions in different cancer types require flexible incorporation of between-cancer and within-cancer signals. As most datasets in genome sciences contain multiple levels of heterogeneity, careful parsing of group characteristics and within-group, individual variation is essential when making robust inference.Author summary: One of the central goals for precision oncology is to tailor treatment of individual tumors by their molecular characteristics. While drug response predictions have traditionally been sought within each cancer type, it has long been hoped to develop more robust predictions by jointly considering diverse cancer types. While such pan-cancer approaches have improved in recent years, it remains unclear whether between-tissue differences are contributing to the reported pan-cancer prediction performance. This concern stems from the observation that, when cancer types differ in both molecular features and drug response, strong predictive information can come mainly from differences among tissue types. Our study finds that both between- and within-cancer type signals provide substantial contributions to pan-cancer drug response prediction models, and about half of the cancer types examined are poorly predicted despite strong overall performance across all cancer types. We also find that pan-cancer prediction models perform similarly or better than cancer type-specific models, and in many cases the advantage of pan-cancer models is due to the larger number of samples available for pan-cancer analysis. Our results highlight tissue-of-origin as a key consideration for pan-cancer drug response prediction models, and recommend cancer type-specific considerations when translating pan-cancer prediction models for clinical use.

Suggested Citation

  • John P Lloyd & Matthew B Soellner & Sofia D Merajver & Jun Z Li, 2021. "Impact of between-tissue differences on pan-cancer predictions of drug sensitivity," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-25, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1008720
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008720
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008720
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008720&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008720?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Naiqian Zhang & Haiyun Wang & Yun Fang & Jun Wang & Xiaoqi Zheng & X Shirley Liu, 2015. "Predicting Anticancer Drug Responses Using a Dual-Layer Integrated Cell Line-Drug Network Model," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-18, September.
    2. Charles M. Perou & Therese Sørlie & Michael B. Eisen & Matt van de Rijn & Stefanie S. Jeffrey & Christian A. Rees & Jonathan R. Pollack & Douglas T. Ross & Hilde Johnsen & Lars A. Akslen & Øystein Flu, 2000. "Molecular portraits of human breast tumours," Nature, Nature, vol. 406(6797), pages 747-752, August.
    3. David G Covell, 2015. "Data Mining Approaches for Genomic Biomarker Development: Applications Using Drug Screening Data from the Cancer Genome Project and the Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-28, July.
    4. Friedman, Jerome H. & Hastie, Trevor & Tibshirani, Rob, 2010. "Regularization Paths for Generalized Linear Models via Coordinate Descent," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 33(i01).
    5. Jeremy J Berg & Graham Coop, 2014. "A Population Genetic Signal of Polygenic Adaptation," PLOS Genetics, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-25, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tutz, Gerhard & Pößnecker, Wolfgang & Uhlmann, Lorenz, 2015. "Variable selection in general multinomial logit models," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 207-222.
    2. Yang, Xi & Hoadley, Katherine A. & Hannig, Jan & Marron, J.S., 2023. "Jackstraw inference for AJIVE data integration," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    3. Ernesto Carrella & Richard M. Bailey & Jens Koed Madsen, 2018. "Indirect inference through prediction," Papers 1807.01579, arXiv.org.
    4. Rui Wang & Naihua Xiu & Kim-Chuan Toh, 2021. "Subspace quadratic regularization method for group sparse multinomial logistic regression," Computational Optimization and Applications, Springer, vol. 79(3), pages 531-559, July.
    5. Mkhadri, Abdallah & Ouhourane, Mohamed, 2013. "An extended variable inclusion and shrinkage algorithm for correlated variables," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 631-644.
    6. Masakazu Higuchi & Mitsuteru Nakamura & Shuji Shinohara & Yasuhiro Omiya & Takeshi Takano & Daisuke Mizuguchi & Noriaki Sonota & Hiroyuki Toda & Taku Saito & Mirai So & Eiji Takayama & Hiroo Terashi &, 2022. "Detection of Major Depressive Disorder Based on a Combination of Voice Features: An Exploratory Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-13, September.
    7. Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens & Stefan Wager, 2018. "Approximate residual balancing: debiased inference of average treatment effects in high dimensions," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 80(4), pages 597-623, September.
    8. Vincent, Martin & Hansen, Niels Richard, 2014. "Sparse group lasso and high dimensional multinomial classification," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 771-786.
    9. Chen, Le-Yu & Lee, Sokbae, 2018. "Best subset binary prediction," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 206(1), pages 39-56.
    10. Perrot-Dockès Marie & Lévy-Leduc Céline & Chiquet Julien & Sansonnet Laure & Brégère Margaux & Étienne Marie-Pierre & Robin Stéphane & Genta-Jouve Grégory, 2018. "A variable selection approach in the multivariate linear model: an application to LC-MS metabolomics data," Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology, De Gruyter, vol. 17(5), pages 1-14, October.
    11. Fan, Jianqing & Jiang, Bai & Sun, Qiang, 2022. "Bayesian factor-adjusted sparse regression," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 230(1), pages 3-19.
    12. Manish G & Anil Kumar Badana & Rama Rao Malla, 2017. "Emerging Diagnostic and Prognostic Biomarkers of Triple Negative Breast Cancer," Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research, Biomedical Research Network+, LLC, vol. 1(3), pages 561-565, August.
    13. Jacob Elnaggar & Fern Tsien & Lucio Miele & Chindo Hicks & Clayton Yates & Melisa Davis, 2019. "An Integrative Genomics Approach for Associating Genetic Susceptibility with the Tumor Immune Microenvironment in Triple Negative Breast Cancer," Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research, Biomedical Research Network+, LLC, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, February.
    14. Jun Li & Serguei Netessine & Sergei Koulayev, 2018. "Price to Compete … with Many: How to Identify Price Competition in High-Dimensional Space," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(9), pages 4118-4136, September.
    15. Sung Jae Jun & Sokbae Lee, 2020. "Causal Inference under Outcome-Based Sampling with Monotonicity Assumptions," Papers 2004.08318, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2023.
    16. Rina Friedberg & Julie Tibshirani & Susan Athey & Stefan Wager, 2018. "Local Linear Forests," Papers 1807.11408, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2020.
    17. Xiangwei Li & Thomas Delerue & Ben Schöttker & Bernd Holleczek & Eva Grill & Annette Peters & Melanie Waldenberger & Barbara Thorand & Hermann Brenner, 2022. "Derivation and validation of an epigenetic frailty risk score in population-based cohorts of older adults," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-11, December.
    18. Hewamalage, Hansika & Bergmeir, Christoph & Bandara, Kasun, 2021. "Recurrent Neural Networks for Time Series Forecasting: Current status and future directions," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 388-427.
    19. Hui Xiao & Yiguo Sun, 2020. "Forecasting the Returns of Cryptocurrency: A Model Averaging Approach," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-15, November.
    20. Christopher J Greenwood & George J Youssef & Primrose Letcher & Jacqui A Macdonald & Lauryn J Hagg & Ann Sanson & Jenn Mcintosh & Delyse M Hutchinson & John W Toumbourou & Matthew Fuller-Tyszkiewicz &, 2020. "A comparison of penalised regression methods for informing the selection of predictive markers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-14, November.

    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:pcbi00:1008720. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    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.