Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2018 Aug 23;8(1):12675.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-31027-y.

A Response Prediction Model for Taxane, Cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil Chemotherapy in Hypopharyngeal Carcinoma

Affiliations
Free PMC article
Clinical Trial

A Response Prediction Model for Taxane, Cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil Chemotherapy in Hypopharyngeal Carcinoma

Qi Zhong et al. Sci Rep. .
Free PMC article

Abstract

Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is the sixth most common cancer worldwide. The five-year survival rate of HNSCC has not improved even with major technological advancements in surgery and chemotherapy. Currently, docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluoruracil (TPF) treatment has been the most popular chemotherapy method for HNSCC; but only a small percentage of HNSCC patients exhibit a good response to TPF treatment. Unfortunately, at present, no reasonably effective prediction model exists to assist clinicians with patient treatment. For this reason, patients have no other alternative but to risk neoadjuvant chemotherapy in order to determine their response to TPF. In this study, we analyzed the gene expression profile in TPF-sensitive and non-sensitive patient samples. We identified a gene expression signature between these two groups. We further chose 10 genes and trained a support vector machine (SVM) model. This model has 88.3% sensitivity and 88.9% specificity to predict the response to TPF treatment in our patients. In addition, four more TPF responsive and four more TPF non-sensitive patient samples were used for further validation. This SVM model has been proven to achieve approximately 75.0% sensitivity and 100% specificity to predict TPF response in new patients. This suggests that our 10-genes SVM prediction model has the potential to assist clinicians to personalize treatment for HNSCC patients.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Heatmap of the first group of samples. Twenty-one samples were included in the first study. The rows represent the samples; the text at the right of each row describes the TPF sensitivity (Sen) or non-sensitivity (Non-sen) sample. The columns represent different expressed genes (DEGs). The color shows the expression levels of DEGs in the samples (z-score normalized by columns).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Principal components analysis. X-axis: the first principal component; y-axis: the second principal component. The scores of the first (PC1) and second (PC2) principle components were plotted. The color shows the category (Sen or Non-sen) of the sample.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Immunostaining of candidate genes. (A,B) Presentative IHC images of CXCR1 and ARID3B with different (A) 100X; (B) 400X. (C) Statistical analysis of the immunohistochemistry results for CXCR1 and ARID3B. Student t-test, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 1 article

References

    1. Hunter KD, Parkinson EK, Harrison PR. Profiling early head and neck cancer. Nature reviews. Cancer. 2005;5:127–135. doi: 10.1038/nrc1549. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rothenberg SM, Ellisen LW. The molecular pathogenesis of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. The Journal of clinical investigation. 2012;122:1951–1957. doi: 10.1172/JCI59889. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2015. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians. 2015;65:5–29. - PubMed
    1. Leemans CR, Braakhuis BJ, Brakenhoff RH. The molecular biology of head and neck cancer. Nature reviews. Cancer. 2011;11:9–22. doi: 10.1038/nrc2982. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chen AY, Schrag N, Hao Y, Stewart A, Ward E. Changes in treatment of advanced oropharyngeal cancer, 1985-2001. The Laryngoscope. 2007;117:16–21. doi: 10.1097/01.mlg.0000240182.61922.31. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Feedback