Loss of Heterozygosity of Chromosome 3 Detected with Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms Is Superior to Monosomy 3 for PredictingMetastasis in Uveal Melanoma
M. Onken,Lori A. Worley,E. Person,D. Char,A. Bowcock,J. Harbour
Abstract:Purpose: Loss of chromosome 3 is strongly associated with metastasis in uveal melanoma and has beenproposed as the basis for clinical prognostic testing. It is not knownwhether techniques that identify loss of heterozygosity for chromosome 3 predict metastasis more accurately than those that detect only numerical loss of chromosome 3 (monosomy 3). Experimental Design: Fifty-three uveal melanomas were analyzed by 28 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) across chromosome 3. SNP was compared with fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) for metastasis prediction by sensitivity, specificity, and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, using our validated gene expression-based classifier as a reference standard. Results: By Kaplan-Meier analysis, only the gene expression-based classifier (P = 0.001) and SNP-based detection of loss of heterozygosity for chromosome 3 (P = 0.04) were significantly associated with metastasis. Sensitivity and specificity were 95.2% and 80.8%, respectively, for SNP, 77.8% and 64.7%, respectively, for FISH, and 85.0% and 72.0%, respectively, for aCGH. Isodisomy 3 was identified by SNP but undetected by aCGHand FISH in three tumors. Conclusions: Prognostic tests based on SNP platforms, which detect both chromosomal homologues and their subregions, may be superior to techniques that only detect changes in chromosome number.These observations could have important implications for efforts to detect genetic alterations in cancer genomes with CGH-based approaches. Uveal melanoma is the most common primary cancer of the eye and has a strong predilection for hematogenous metastasis, particularly to the liver (1). Up to half of uveal melanoma patients develop metastasis with a median time of 2.4 years from ocular diagnosis, usually leading to death within a few months (2). This has lead some investigators to propose that high-risk patients should be treated with prophylactic systemic therapy (3). However, an accurate prognostic classifier for identifying high-risk patients who may benefit from prophylactic therapy has not been validated. Many clinical and pathologic features have been associated with metastatic disease, but none of these has been shown to have adequate sensitivity and specificity for making personalized clinical decisions. Monosomy 3, detected by cytogenetic analysis, spectral karyotyping, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), comparative genomic hybridization (CGH), and other techniques, may be more accurate than clinical and pathologic features and has been adopted as a molecular prognostic marker in many centers (4–12). More recently, two distinct molecular subgroups were identified by gene expression profiling that correlate strongly with metastatic risk (13, 14). Tumors with the class 1 expression signature had a low risk, and those with the class 2 signature had a high risk of metastasis. Although there was a strong association between the class 2 signature and monosomy 3, the gene expression-based classifier was superior in prognostic accuracy to monosomy 3 (13). Elucidating the reasons for this superiority is important, not only from a biological standpoint, but also from a practical one. Although gene expression profiling may be more accurate, DNA-based chromosome 3 testing may be necessary where high quality RNA is not available such as in tumors that are partially necrotic or have been embedded in paraffin. The inferior performance of monosomy 3 compared with the gene expression classifier may be due, at least in part, to technical limitations in the methods that have been used to detect monosomy 3. Single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) Imaging, Diagnosis, Prognosis Authors’ Affiliations: Departments of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences and Human Genetics,Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri and Tumori Foundation, San Francisco, California Received 9/26/06; revised 3/1/07; accepted 3/9/07. Grant support:National Cancer Institute grant R01CA125970,Tumori Foundation, Horncrest Foundation, Barnes-Jewish Hospital Foundation, Research to Prevent Blindness, Inc., and the Macula Society Retina Research Foundation/Mills and Margaret Cox Endowment Fund (J.W. Harbour). The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges.This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with18 U.S.C. Section1734 solely to indicate this fact. Note: Supplementary data for this article are available at Clinical Cancer Research Online (http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/). Thisworkhasbeenpresented inpart at the 2006AACRInternational Conference on Molecular Diagnostics in Cancer Therapeutic Development, September 12-15, 2006, Chicago, IL. Requests for reprints: J.William Harbour, Departments of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, 660 South Euclid Avenue, Box 8096, St. Louis, Missouri. Phone: 314-362-3315; Fax: 314-747-5073; E-mail: harbour@wustl.edu. F2007 American Association for Cancer Research. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-2383 www.aacrjournals.org Clin Cancer Res 2007;13(10) May15, 2007 2923 Research. on June 9, 2017. © 2007 American Association for Cancer clincancerres.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from analysis has emerged as a promising method for detecting chromosome copy number changes and loss of heterozygosity (LOH) in cancer (15, 16). We have developed a highthroughput, mass spectrometry–based assay to interrogate highly polymorphic SNPs distributed across chromosome 3. In this study, the prognostic accuracy of the SNP assay was compared with traditional methods for measuring monosomy 3, including array CGH (aCGH) and FISH. Detection of LOH by SNP was superior to aCGH and FISH, due in part to its ability to detect isodisomy 3. These findings may have important implications for efforts to identify genetic rearrangements in cancer. Materials andMethods Preparation of DNA. This study was approved by the Human Studies Committee at Washington University. Informed consent was obtained from each subject. Tumor tissue from uveal melanoma patients was obtained at the time of eye removal, immediately snap frozen in the operating room, and stored at -80jC until DNA preparation. Genomic DNA was prepared using the Wizard Genomic DNA purification kit (Promega). Normal DNA was purified from peripheral blood samples using the PureGene DNA Purification System Blood kit (Gentra Systems). SNP analysis. SNPs were selected from the Ensembl Homo sapiens SNPs database (based on dbSNP 126, HGVbase 15, TSC 1, and Affymetrix GeneChip Mapping Array) with minor allele frequencies >0.4 in the European population (which describes all patients in the study) at approximate intervals of 6 F 0.5 Mb across the euchromatic regions of chromosome 3. Sequenom SpectroDESIGNER software was used for the design of primers to permit genotyping in multiplex fashion (‘‘IPLEX’’ software). We selected 35 SNPs that met these selection criteria and tested them on tumor DNA samples with known genotypes. Seven SNPs were eliminated due to poor primer performance or lower than expected minor allele frequency. The resulting 28 SNPs were included in the LOH assay. Reference IDs for SNPs that were included and excluded from the final assay are available on request. SNP-mass spectrometry-genotyping (16) was done with matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time-of-flight mass spectrometry by the Division of Human Genetics Genotyping core facility using the Sequenom MassARRAY system. Allele calls and confidence scores were made by Sequenom software. For this initial analysis, only high confidence calls were included. Matching normal DNA was analyzed in 22 cases to verify the accuracy of allele calls. Statistical analysis. Fisher’s exact test was used to assess the significance of association between two categorical variables. KaplanMeier analysis was used to assess time-dependent association with metastasis for categorical variables. Sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and predictive values were assessed using metastasis as the primary end point and gene expression-based classification (class 1 or class 2) as a surrogate end point in metastasis-free patients with <5 years follow-up. This surrogate end point was selected based on the high predictive accuracy of the gene expression classifier (17). All statistical analyses were done using MedCalc software (version 9.0.0.1).