Polymorphisms in DNA-Repair Genes in a Cohort of Prostate Cancer Patients from Different Areas in Spain: Heterogeneity between Populations as a Confounding Factor in Association Studies.

BACKGROUND Differences in the distribution of genotypes between individuals of the same ethnicity are an important confounder factor commonly undervalued in typical association studies conducted in radiogenomics. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the genotypic distribution of SNPs in a wide set of Spanish prostate cancer patients for determine the homogeneity of the population and to disclose potential bias. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS A total of 601 prostate cancer patients from Andalusia, Basque Country, Canary and Catalonia were genotyped for 10 SNPs located in 6 different genes associated to DNA repair: XRCC1 (rs25487, rs25489, rs1799782), ERCC2 (rs13181), ERCC1 (rs11615), LIG4 (rs1805388, rs1805386), ATM (rs17503908, rs1800057) and P53 (rs1042522). The SNP genotyping was made in a Biotrove OpenArray® NT Cycler. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Comparisons of genotypic and allelic frequencies among populations, as well as haplotype analyses were determined using the web-based environment SNPator. Principal component analysis was made using the SnpMatrix and XSnpMatrix classes and methods implemented as an R package. Non-supervised hierarchical cluster of SNP was made using MultiExperiment Viewer. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS We observed that genotype distribution of 4 out 10 SNPs was statistically different among the studied populations, showing the greatest differences between Andalusia and Catalonia. These observations were confirmed in cluster analysis, principal component analysis and in the differential distribution of haplotypes among the populations. Because tumor characteristics have not been taken into account, it is possible that some polymorphisms may influence tumor characteristics in the same way that it may pose a risk factor for other disease characteristics. CONCLUSION Differences in distribution of genotypes within different populations of the same ethnicity could be an important confounding factor responsible for the lack of validation of SNPs associated with radiation-induced toxicity, especially when extensive meta-analysis with subjects from different countries are carried out.

Effective diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease by means of large margin-based methodology.

BACKGROUND Functional brain images such as Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT) and Positron Emission Tomography (PET) have been widely used to guide the clinicians in the Alzheimer's Disease (AD) diagnosis. However, the subjectivity involved in their evaluation has favoured the development of Computer Aided Diagnosis (CAD) Systems. METHODS It is proposed a novel combination of feature extraction techniques to improve the diagnosis of AD. Firstly, Regions of Interest (ROIs) are selected by means of a t-test carried out on 3D Normalised Mean Square Error (NMSE) features restricted to be located within a predefined brain activation mask. In order to address the small sample-size problem, the dimension of the feature space was further reduced by: Large Margin Nearest Neighbours using a rectangular matrix (LMNN-RECT), Principal Component Analysis (PCA) or Partial Least Squares (PLS) (the two latter also analysed with a LMNN transformation). Regarding the classifiers, kernel Support Vector Machines (SVMs) and LMNN using Euclidean, Mahalanobis and Energy-based metrics were compared. RESULTS Several experiments were conducted in order to evaluate the proposed LMNN-based feature extraction algorithms and its benefits as: i) linear transformation of the PLS or PCA reduced data, ii) feature reduction technique, and iii) classifier (with Euclidean, Mahalanobis or Energy-based methodology). The system was evaluated by means of k-fold cross-validation yielding accuracy, sensitivity and specificity values of 92.78%, 91.07% and 95.12% (for SPECT) and 90.67%, 88% and 93.33% (for PET), respectively, when a NMSE-PLS-LMNN feature extraction method was used in combination with a SVM classifier, thus outperforming recently reported baseline methods. CONCLUSIONS All the proposed methods turned out to be a valid solution for the presented problem. One of the advances is the robustness of the LMNN algorithm that not only provides higher separation rate between the classes but it also makes (in combination with NMSE and PLS) this rate variation more stable. In addition, their generalization ability is another advance since several experiments were performed on two image modalities (SPECT and PET).