SURVIVAL PREDICTION FOR BRAIN TUMOR PATIENTS USING GENE EXPRESSION DATA

Brain tumor is one of the most aggressive types of cancer in humans, with an estimated median survival time of 12 months and only 4% of the patients surviving more than 5 years after disease diagnosis. Until recently, brain tumor prognosis has been based only on clinical information such as tumor grade and patient age, but there are reports indicating that molecular profiling of gliomas can reveal subgroups of patients with distinct survival rates. We hypothesize that coupling molecular profiling of brain tumors with clinical information might improve predictions of patient survival time and, consequently, better guide future treatment decisions. In order to evaluate this hypothesis, the general goal of this research is to build models for survival prediction of glioma patients using DNA molecular profiles (U133 Affymetrix gene expression microarrays) along with clinical information. First, a predictive Random Forest model is built for binary outcomes (i.e. short vs. long-term survival) and a small subset of genes whose expression values can be used to predict survival time is selected. Following, a new statistical methodology is developed for predicting time-to-death outcomes using Bayesian ensemble trees. Due to a large heterogeneity observed within prognostic classes obtained by the Random Forest model, prediction can be improved by relating time-to-death with gene expression profile directly. We propose a Bayesian ensemble model for survival prediction which is appropriate for high-dimensional data such as gene expression data. Our approach is based on the ensemble "sum-of-trees" model which is flexible to incorporate additive and interaction effects between genes. We specify a fully Bayesian hierarchical approach and illustrate our methodology for the CPH, Weibull, and AFT survival models. We overcome the lack of conjugacy using a latent variable formulation to model the covariate effects which decreases computation time for model fitting. Also, our proposed models provides a model-free way to select important predictive prognostic markers based on controlling false discovery rates. We compare the performance of our methods with baseline reference survival methods and apply our methodology to an unpublished data set of brain tumor survival times and gene expression data, selecting genes potentially related to the development of the disease under study. A closing discussion compares results obtained by Random Forest and Bayesian ensemble methods under the biological/clinical perspectives and highlights the statistical advantages and disadvantages of the new methodology in the context of DNA microarray data analysis.

Selection bias and the cross-validation of regression models for prediction

Strategies are compared for the development of a linear regression model with stochastic (multivariate normal) regressor variables and the subsequent assessment of its predictive ability. Bias and mean squared error of four estimators of predictive performance are evaluated in simulated samples of 32 population correlation matrices. Models including all of the available predictors are compared with those obtained using selected subsets. The subset selection procedures investigated include two stopping rules, C$\sb{\rm p}$ and S$\sb{\rm p}$, each combined with an 'all possible subsets' or 'forward selection' of variables. The estimators of performance utilized include parametric (MSEP$\sb{\rm m}$) and non-parametric (PRESS) assessments in the entire sample, and two data splitting estimates restricted to a random or balanced (Snee's DUPLEX) 'validation' half sample. The simulations were performed as a designed experiment, with population correlation matrices representing a broad range of data structures.^ The techniques examined for subset selection do not generally result in improved predictions relative to the full model. Approaches using 'forward selection' result in slightly smaller prediction errors and less biased estimators of predictive accuracy than 'all possible subsets' approaches but no differences are detected between the performances of C$\sb{\rm p}$ and S$\sb{\rm p}$. In every case, prediction errors of models obtained by subset selection in either of the half splits exceed those obtained using all predictors and the entire sample.^ Only the random split estimator is conditionally (on $\\beta$) unbiased, however MSEP$\sb{\rm m}$ is unbiased on average and PRESS is nearly so in unselected (fixed form) models. When subset selection techniques are used, MSEP$\sb{\rm m}$ and PRESS always underestimate prediction errors, by as much as 27 percent (on average) in small samples. Despite their bias, the mean squared errors (MSE) of these estimators are at least 30 percent less than that of the unbiased random split estimator. The DUPLEX split estimator suffers from large MSE as well as bias, and seems of little value within the context of stochastic regressor variables.^ To maximize predictive accuracy while retaining a reliable estimate of that accuracy, it is recommended that the entire sample be used for model development, and a leave-one-out statistic (e.g. PRESS) be used for assessment. ^