Evaluation of two algorithms measuring homologous recombination deficiency status in prognostic assessment for treatment-naïve non-small cell lung cancer.

IF 7 2区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY
Yidan Ma, Jingyu Huang, Lei He, Jun Du, Longteng Liu, Xiaoguang Li, Peng Jiao, Xiaonan Wu, Wei Zhou, Xiaomao Xu, Li Yang, Jing Di, Changbin Zhu, Lin Li, Dongge Liu, Zheng Wang
{"title":"Evaluation of two algorithms measuring homologous recombination deficiency status in prognostic assessment for treatment-naïve non-small cell lung cancer.","authors":"Yidan Ma, Jingyu Huang, Lei He, Jun Du, Longteng Liu, Xiaoguang Li, Peng Jiao, Xiaonan Wu, Wei Zhou, Xiaomao Xu, Li Yang, Jing Di, Changbin Zhu, Lin Li, Dongge Liu, Zheng Wang","doi":"10.21147/j.issn.1000-9604.2025.03.05","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Patients with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) demonstrate distinct clinicopathological and prognostic features. However, standardised and clinically validated HRD detection methodologies specifically tailored for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have yet to be established. Further research is needed to clarify the precise role and clinical implications of HRD in NSCLC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cohort of 580 treatment-naïve NSCLC patients was retrospectively enrolled. Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) was performed for all patients, and HRD status was evaluated using two genomic scar score (GSS)-based algorithms: a machine learning-based GSS (ML-GSS) and a continuous linear regression-based GSS (CLR-GSS). To assess the diagnostic performance (sensitivity and specificity) of the ML-GSS and CLR-GSS algorithms for HRD detection, immunohistochemical (IHC) staining was conducted for two HRD-related biomarkers: Schlafen 11 (SLFN11) and RAD51. Survival analysis, including progression-free survival (PFS), along with multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, was performed to compare the prognostic value of the two HRD algorithms.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among all patients, 146 (25.2%) and 46 (7.9%) were classified as HRD-positive (HRD+) by ML-GSS and CLR-GSS, respectively. Using SLFN11 IHC expression as the reference standard, comparative analysis demonstrated that ML-GSS exhibited significantly higher sensitivity but lower specificity than CLR-GSS. This trend was consistently observed in RAD51 staining analysis. Compared to HRD-negative (HRD-) patients, ML-GSS-defined HRD+ cases displayed distinct clinicopathological and genomic features, including a higher prevalence of homologous recombination (HR)-related genes mutations, <i>BRCA1/2</i> mutations, <i>TP53</i> mutations, elevated tumor mutation burden (TMB), and increased copy number variations (CNVs). In contrast, CLR-GSS-defined HRD+ patients were only enriched for <i>BRCA1/2</i> mutations, <i>TP53</i> mutations, and elevated TMB. Furthermore, ML-GSS-defined HRD+ status was associated with significantly worse prognosis following first-line therapy compared to HRD- patients. Univariate and multivariable Cox analyses identified ML-GSS-defined HRD+ and <i>TP53</i> mutations as significant predictors and independent risk factors, respectively. No such associations were observed in the CLR-GSS-defined HRD+ cohort.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ML-GSS demonstrated superior performance to CLR-GSS in assessing chromosomal instability (CIN) and showed greater clinical utility. We recommend the ML-GSS algorithm as a robust and clinically validated tool for HRD/CIN evaluation in NSCLC. Furthermore, ML-GSS-defined HRD+ status was identified as both a significant predictor and an independent risk factor.</p>","PeriodicalId":9882,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Journal of Cancer Research","volume":"37 3","pages":"352-364"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12240257/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chinese Journal of Cancer Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21147/j.issn.1000-9604.2025.03.05","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Patients with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) demonstrate distinct clinicopathological and prognostic features. However, standardised and clinically validated HRD detection methodologies specifically tailored for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have yet to be established. Further research is needed to clarify the precise role and clinical implications of HRD in NSCLC.

Methods: A cohort of 580 treatment-naïve NSCLC patients was retrospectively enrolled. Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) was performed for all patients, and HRD status was evaluated using two genomic scar score (GSS)-based algorithms: a machine learning-based GSS (ML-GSS) and a continuous linear regression-based GSS (CLR-GSS). To assess the diagnostic performance (sensitivity and specificity) of the ML-GSS and CLR-GSS algorithms for HRD detection, immunohistochemical (IHC) staining was conducted for two HRD-related biomarkers: Schlafen 11 (SLFN11) and RAD51. Survival analysis, including progression-free survival (PFS), along with multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, was performed to compare the prognostic value of the two HRD algorithms.

Results: Among all patients, 146 (25.2%) and 46 (7.9%) were classified as HRD-positive (HRD+) by ML-GSS and CLR-GSS, respectively. Using SLFN11 IHC expression as the reference standard, comparative analysis demonstrated that ML-GSS exhibited significantly higher sensitivity but lower specificity than CLR-GSS. This trend was consistently observed in RAD51 staining analysis. Compared to HRD-negative (HRD-) patients, ML-GSS-defined HRD+ cases displayed distinct clinicopathological and genomic features, including a higher prevalence of homologous recombination (HR)-related genes mutations, BRCA1/2 mutations, TP53 mutations, elevated tumor mutation burden (TMB), and increased copy number variations (CNVs). In contrast, CLR-GSS-defined HRD+ patients were only enriched for BRCA1/2 mutations, TP53 mutations, and elevated TMB. Furthermore, ML-GSS-defined HRD+ status was associated with significantly worse prognosis following first-line therapy compared to HRD- patients. Univariate and multivariable Cox analyses identified ML-GSS-defined HRD+ and TP53 mutations as significant predictors and independent risk factors, respectively. No such associations were observed in the CLR-GSS-defined HRD+ cohort.

Conclusions: ML-GSS demonstrated superior performance to CLR-GSS in assessing chromosomal instability (CIN) and showed greater clinical utility. We recommend the ML-GSS algorithm as a robust and clinically validated tool for HRD/CIN evaluation in NSCLC. Furthermore, ML-GSS-defined HRD+ status was identified as both a significant predictor and an independent risk factor.

两种测量同源重组缺陷状态的算法在treatment-naïve非小细胞肺癌预后评估中的评价。
目的:同源重组缺乏症(HRD)患者表现出独特的临床病理和预后特征。然而,针对非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)的标准化和临床验证的HRD检测方法尚未建立。HRD在非小细胞肺癌中的确切作用和临床意义有待进一步研究。方法:回顾性纳入580例treatment-naïve非小细胞肺癌患者。对所有患者进行全面的基因组分析(CGP),并使用两种基于基因组疤痕评分(GSS)的算法评估HRD状态:基于机器学习的GSS (ML-GSS)和基于连续线性回归的GSS (CLR-GSS)。为了评估ML-GSS和CLR-GSS算法对HRD检测的诊断性能(敏感性和特异性),对两种HRD相关生物标志物:Schlafen 11 (SLFN11)和RAD51进行免疫组织化学(IHC)染色。生存率分析,包括无进展生存期(PFS),以及多变量Cox比例风险模型,以比较两种HRD算法的预后价值。结果:所有患者中,ML-GSS和CLR-GSS分别为146例(25.2%)和46例(7.9%)HRD阳性(HRD+)。以SLFN11 IHC表达为参比标准,对比分析发现ML-GSS的敏感性明显高于CLR-GSS,特异性明显低于CLR-GSS。这种趋势在RAD51染色分析中一致观察到。与HRD阴性(HRD-)患者相比,ml - gss定义的HRD+病例表现出不同的临床病理和基因组特征,包括同源重组(HR)相关基因突变、BRCA1/2突变、TP53突变、肿瘤突变负担(TMB)升高和拷贝数变异(CNVs)增加的患病率更高。相比之下,clr - gss定义的HRD+患者仅富集BRCA1/2突变、TP53突变和TMB升高。此外,与HRD-患者相比,ml - gss定义的HRD+状态与一线治疗后明显更差的预后相关。单变量和多变量Cox分析发现,ml - gss定义的HRD+和TP53突变分别是重要的预测因素和独立的危险因素。在clr - gss定义的HRD+队列中未观察到此类关联。结论:ML-GSS在评估染色体不稳定性(CIN)方面表现优于CLR-GSS,具有更大的临床应用价值。我们推荐ML-GSS算法作为非小细胞肺癌HRD/CIN评估的可靠且经临床验证的工具。此外,ml - gss定义的HRD+状态被确定为一个重要的预测因子和独立的危险因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
9.80%
发文量
1726
审稿时长
4.5 months
期刊介绍: Chinese Journal of Cancer Research (CJCR; Print ISSN: 1000-9604; Online ISSN:1993-0631) is published by AME Publishing Company in association with Chinese Anti-Cancer Association.It was launched in March 1995 as a quarterly publication and is now published bi-monthly since February 2013. CJCR is published bi-monthly in English, and is an international journal devoted to the life sciences and medical sciences. It publishes peer-reviewed original articles of basic investigations and clinical observations, reviews and brief communications providing a forum for the recent experimental and clinical advances in cancer research. This journal is indexed in Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE), PubMed/PubMed Central (PMC), Scopus, SciSearch, Chemistry Abstracts (CA), the Excerpta Medica/EMBASE, Chinainfo, CNKI, CSCI, etc.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信