Cited by 36Neuroblastoma Research and TreatmentsGene expression and cancer classificationBreast Cancer Treatment Studies

Validation of a prognostic multi‐gene signature in high‐risk neuroblastoma using the high throughput digital NanoString nCounter™ system

Open access
Stricker, Thomas P., Morales La Madrid, Andres, Chlenski, Alexandre, Guerrero, Lisa, Salwen, Helen R., Gosiengfiao, Yasmin, Perlman, Elizabeth J., Furman, Wayne +12 more·2014·Molecular Oncology

Abstract

Microarray‐based molecular signatures have not been widely integrated into neuroblastoma diagnostic classification systems due to the complexities of the assay and requirement for high‐quality RNA. New digital technologies that accurately quantify gene expression using RNA isolated from formalin‐fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) tissues are now available. In this study, we describe the first use of a high‐throughput digital system to assay the expression of genes in an “ultra‐high risk” microarray classifier in FFPE high‐risk neuroblastoma tumors. Customized probes corresponding to the 42 genes in a published multi‐gene neuroblastoma signature were hybridized to RNA isolated from 107 FFPE high‐risk neuroblastoma samples using the NanoString nCounter™ Analysis System. For classification of each patient, the Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated between the standardized nCounter™ data and the molecular signature from the microarray data. We demonstrate that the nCounter™ 42‐gene panel sub‐stratified the high‐risk cohort into two subsets with statistically significantly different overall survival ( p = 0.0027) and event‐free survival ( p = 0.028). In contrast, none of the established prognostic risk markers (age, stage, tumor histology, MYCN status, and ploidy) were significantly associated with survival. We conclude that the nCounter™ System can reproducibly quantify expression levels of signature genes in FFPE tumor samples. Validation of this microarray signature in our high‐risk patient cohort using a completely different technology emphasizes the prognostic relevance of this classifier. Prospective studies testing the prognostic value of molecular signatures in high‐risk neuroblastoma patients using FFPE tumor samples and the nCounter™ System are warranted.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.molonc.2014.01.010

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The best performing models were able to predict outcome of high-risk patients with a similar precision as previously published multigene signatures, and independently from current prognostic markers.

    “In addition, we found that the best performing models were able to predict outcome of high-risk patients with a similar precision as previously published multigene signatures [18, 20, 33], and independently from current prognostic markers.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stricker, T. P., Morales La Madrid, A., Chlenski, A., Guerrero, L., Salwen, H. R., Gosiengfiao, Y., Perlman, E. J., Furman, W., Bahrami, A., Shohet, J. M., Zage, P. E., Hicks, M. J., Shimada, H., Suganuma, R., Park, J. R., So, S., London, W. B., Pytel, P., Maclean, K. H., & Cohn, S. L.
Affiliations
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
  • University of Chicago (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • St. Jude Children's Research Hospital (US)
  • Baylor College of Medicine (US)
  • Children's Hospital Los Angeles (US)
  • Seattle Children's Hospital (US)
  • Boston Children's Hospital (US)
  • Nanostring Technologies (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Cohn, Susan L.
Venue
Molecular Oncology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-01-31
Volume
8
Issue
3
Pages
669-678
ISSN
  • 1574-7891 (ISSN-L)
  • 1878-0261
OpenAlex
W2013276712
Cited by
36
References
32
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 1
FWCI
5.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Molecular Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Conquer Cancer Foundation (AML)
  • St. Baldrick's Foundation (AML)
  • Children's Neuroblastoma Cancer Foundation (SLC)
  • Neuroblastoma Children's Cancer Society (SLC)
  • Elise Anderson Foundation (SLC)
  • The National Cancer Institute
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Neuroblastoma Research and Treatments
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Breast Cancer Treatment Studies
Keywords
high-risk neuroblastoma, NanoString nCounter, digital gene expression profiling, formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue, overall survival, event-free survival, MYCN, tumor ploidy, prognostic risk classification
MeSH terms
Humans, Infant, Neuroblastoma, Prognosis, Cohort Studies, Cluster Analysis, Oligonucleotide Array Sequence Analysis, Gene Expression Profiling

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review