Abstract

Accurate prediction of tumor progression is key for adaptive therapy and precision medicine. Cancer progression models (CPMs) can be used to infer dependencies in mutation accumulation from cross-sectional data and provide predictions of tumor progression paths. However, their performance when predicting complete evolutionary trajectories is limited by violations of assumptions and the size of available data sets. Instead of predicting full tumor progression paths, here we focus on short-term predictions, more relevant for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. We examine whether five distinct CPMs can be used to answer the question "Given that a genotype with n mutations has been observed, what genotype with n + 1 mutations is next in the path of tumor progression?" or, shortly, "What genotype comes next?". Using simulated data we find that under specific combinations of genotype and fitness landscape characteristics CPMs can provide predictions of short-term evolution that closely match the true probabilities, and that some genotype characteristics can be much more relevant than global features. Application of these methods to 25 cancer data sets shows that their use is hampered by a lack of information needed to make principled decisions about method choice. Fruitful use of these methods for short-term predictions requires adapting method's use to local genotype characteristics and obtaining reliable indicators of performance; it will also be necessary to clarify the interpretation of the method's results when key assumptions do not hold.

Highlights

  • Predicting the evolution of a tumor is a critical goal of cancer biology

  • We examine whether five distinct Cancer progression models (CPMs) can be used to answer the question “Given that a genotype with n mutations has been observed, what genotype with n + 1 mutations is in the path of tumor progression?” or, shortly, “What genotype comes next?”

  • We examine five CPMs: Mutual Hazard Networks (MHN) [3], Conjunctive Bayesian Networks (CBN) [4,5,6], Oncogenetic Trees (OT) [7, 8], CAncer PRogression Inference (CAPRI) [9, 10] and CAncer PRogression Extraction with Single Edges (CAPRESE) [11], some of which have more than one variant

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Predicting the evolution of a tumor is a critical goal of cancer biology. The emergence of next-generation sequencing tools has brought promise for a better understanding of the dynamics of cancer evolution [2], and has fueled the development of methods aimed to predict tumor progression [3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11]. The stochastic components in key factors that govern cancer evolution (mutation, genetic drift, or clonal selection [12,13,14], as well as non-genetic variability [15] and the tumor microenvironment [16]) fundamentally limit predictability –this is common to other problems [17, 18] such as the evolution of antibiotic resistance [19] or virulence [20]. Even small increases in predictive power could be of critical importance for the design of treatment strategies [22]

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call