Search

Simple Summary Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is the most common mucosal malignancy of the head and neck and a leading cause of cancer death. HNSCC arises from different primary anatomical locations that are typically combined during radiomic analyses assuming that the radiomic features, i.e., quantitative image-based features, are similar based on histopathologic characteristics. However, whether these quantitative features are comparable across tumor sites remains unknown. The aim of our retrospective study was to assess if systematic differences exist between radiomic features based on different tumor sites in HNSCC and how they might affect machine learning model performance in endpoint prediction. Using a population of 605 HNSCC patients, we observed significant differences in radiomic features of tumors from different locations and showed that these differences can impact machine learning model performance. This suggests that tumor site should be considered when developing and evaluating radiomics-based models. Abstract Current radiomic studies of head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC) are typically based on datasets combining tumors from different locations, assuming that the radiomic features are similar based on histopathologic characteristics. However, molecular pathogenesis and treatment in HNSCC substantially vary across different tumor sites. It is not known if a statistical difference exists between radiomic features from different tumor sites and how they affect machine learning model performance in endpoint prediction. To answer these questions, we extracted radiomic features from contrast-enhanced neck computed tomography scans (CTs) of 605 patients with HNSCC originating from the oral cavity, oropharynx, and hypopharynx/larynx. The difference in radiomic features of tumors from these sites was assessed using statistical analyses and Random Forest classifiers on the radiomic features with 10-fold cross-validation to predict tumor sites, nodal metastasis, and HPV status. We found statistically significant differences (p-value ≤ 0.05) between the radiomic features of HNSCC depending on tumor location. We also observed that differences in quantitative features among HNSCC from different locations impact the performance of machine learning models. This suggests that radiomic features may reveal biologic heterogeneity complementary to current gold standard histopathologic evaluation. We recommend considering tumor site in radiomic studies of HNSCC.

Gene set analysis methods are widely used to provide insight into high-throughput gene expression data. There are many gene set analysis methods available. These methods rely on various assumptions and have different requirements, strengths and weaknesses. In this paper, we classify gene set analysis methods based on their components, describe the underlying requirements and assumptions for each class, and provide directions for future research in developing and evaluating gene set analysis methods.

Background Gene set analysis is a well-established approach for interpretation of data from high-throughput gene expression studies. Achieving reproducible results is an essential requirement in such studies. One factor of a gene expression experiment that can affect reproducibility is the choice of sample size. However, choosing an appropriate sample size can be difficult, especially because the choice may be method-dependent. Further, sample size choice can have unexpected effects on specificity. Results In this paper, we report on a systematic, quantitative approach to study the effect of sample size on the reproducibility of the results from 13 gene set analysis methods. We also investigate the impact of sample size on the specificity of these methods. Rather than relying on synthetic data, the proposed approach uses real expression datasets to offer an accurate and reliable evaluation. Conclusion Our findings show that, as a general pattern, the results of gene set analysis become more reproducible as sample size increases. However, the extent of reproducibility and the rate at which it increases vary from method to method. In addition, even in the absence of differential expression, some gene set analysis methods report a large number of false positives, and increasing sample size does not lead to reducing these false positives. The results of this research can be used when selecting a gene set analysis method from those available.

Gene set analysis is a quantitative approach for generating biological insight from gene expression datasets. The abundance of gene set analysis methods speaks to their popularity, but raises the question of the extent to which results are affected by the choice of method. Our systematic analysis of 13 popular methods using 6 different datasets, from both DNA microarray and RNA-Seq origin, shows that this choice matters a great deal. We observed that the overall number of gene sets reported by each method differed by up to 2 orders of magnitude, and there was a bias toward reporting large gene sets with some methods. Furthermore, there was substantial disagreement between the 20 most statistically significant gene sets reported by the methods. This was also observed when expanding to the 100 most statistically significant reported gene sets. For different datasets of the same phenotype/condition, the top 20 and top 100 most significant results also showed little to no agreement even when using the same method. GAGE, PAGE, and ORA were the only methods able to achieve relatively high reproducibility when comparing the 20 and 100 most statistically significant gene sets. Biological validation on a juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) dataset showed wide variation in terms of the relevance of the top 20 and top 100 most significant gene sets to known biology of the disease, where GAGE predicted the most relevant gene sets, followed by GSEA, ORA, and PAGE.