No prognostic value added by vitamin D pathway SNPs to current prognostic system for melanoma survival.
The prognostic improvement attributed to genetic markers over current prognostic system has not been well studied for melanoma. The goal of this study is to evaluate the added prognostic value of Vitamin D Pathway (VitD) SNPs to currently known clinical and demographic factors such as age, sex, Bres...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2017-01-01
|
| Series: | PLoS ONE |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174234 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849434668879839232 |
|---|---|
| author | Li Luo Irene Orlow Peter A Kanetsky Nancy E Thomas Shenying Fang Jeffrey E Lee Marianne Berwick Ji-Hyun Lee GEM Study Group |
| author_facet | Li Luo Irene Orlow Peter A Kanetsky Nancy E Thomas Shenying Fang Jeffrey E Lee Marianne Berwick Ji-Hyun Lee GEM Study Group |
| author_sort | Li Luo |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The prognostic improvement attributed to genetic markers over current prognostic system has not been well studied for melanoma. The goal of this study is to evaluate the added prognostic value of Vitamin D Pathway (VitD) SNPs to currently known clinical and demographic factors such as age, sex, Breslow thickness, mitosis and ulceration (CDF). We utilized two large independent well-characterized melanoma studies: the Genes, Environment, and Melanoma (GEM) and MD Anderson studies, and performed variable selection of VitD pathway SNPs and CDF using Random Survival Forest (RSF) method in addition to Cox proportional hazards models. The Harrell's C-index was used to compare the performance of model predictability. The population-based GEM study enrolled 3,578 incident cases of cutaneous melanoma (CM), and the hospital-based MD Anderson study consisted of 1,804 CM patients. Including both VitD SNPs and CDF yielded C-index of 0.85, which provided slight but not significant improvement by CDF alone (C-index = 0.83) in the GEM study. Similar results were observed in the independent MD Anderson study (C-index = 0.84 and 0.83, respectively). The Cox model identified no significant associations after adjusting for multiplicity. Our results do not support clinically significant prognostic improvements attributable to VitD pathway SNPs over current prognostic system for melanoma survival. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-0a48a4e45a394d1dbce3b441b33ba330 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1932-6203 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2017-01-01 |
| publisher | Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PLoS ONE |
| spelling | doaj-art-0a48a4e45a394d1dbce3b441b33ba3302025-08-20T03:26:34ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032017-01-01123e017423410.1371/journal.pone.0174234No prognostic value added by vitamin D pathway SNPs to current prognostic system for melanoma survival.Li LuoIrene OrlowPeter A KanetskyNancy E ThomasShenying FangJeffrey E LeeMarianne BerwickJi-Hyun LeeGEM Study GroupThe prognostic improvement attributed to genetic markers over current prognostic system has not been well studied for melanoma. The goal of this study is to evaluate the added prognostic value of Vitamin D Pathway (VitD) SNPs to currently known clinical and demographic factors such as age, sex, Breslow thickness, mitosis and ulceration (CDF). We utilized two large independent well-characterized melanoma studies: the Genes, Environment, and Melanoma (GEM) and MD Anderson studies, and performed variable selection of VitD pathway SNPs and CDF using Random Survival Forest (RSF) method in addition to Cox proportional hazards models. The Harrell's C-index was used to compare the performance of model predictability. The population-based GEM study enrolled 3,578 incident cases of cutaneous melanoma (CM), and the hospital-based MD Anderson study consisted of 1,804 CM patients. Including both VitD SNPs and CDF yielded C-index of 0.85, which provided slight but not significant improvement by CDF alone (C-index = 0.83) in the GEM study. Similar results were observed in the independent MD Anderson study (C-index = 0.84 and 0.83, respectively). The Cox model identified no significant associations after adjusting for multiplicity. Our results do not support clinically significant prognostic improvements attributable to VitD pathway SNPs over current prognostic system for melanoma survival.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174234 |
| spellingShingle | Li Luo Irene Orlow Peter A Kanetsky Nancy E Thomas Shenying Fang Jeffrey E Lee Marianne Berwick Ji-Hyun Lee GEM Study Group No prognostic value added by vitamin D pathway SNPs to current prognostic system for melanoma survival. PLoS ONE |
| title | No prognostic value added by vitamin D pathway SNPs to current prognostic system for melanoma survival. |
| title_full | No prognostic value added by vitamin D pathway SNPs to current prognostic system for melanoma survival. |
| title_fullStr | No prognostic value added by vitamin D pathway SNPs to current prognostic system for melanoma survival. |
| title_full_unstemmed | No prognostic value added by vitamin D pathway SNPs to current prognostic system for melanoma survival. |
| title_short | No prognostic value added by vitamin D pathway SNPs to current prognostic system for melanoma survival. |
| title_sort | no prognostic value added by vitamin d pathway snps to current prognostic system for melanoma survival |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174234 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT liluo noprognosticvalueaddedbyvitamindpathwaysnpstocurrentprognosticsystemformelanomasurvival AT ireneorlow noprognosticvalueaddedbyvitamindpathwaysnpstocurrentprognosticsystemformelanomasurvival AT peterakanetsky noprognosticvalueaddedbyvitamindpathwaysnpstocurrentprognosticsystemformelanomasurvival AT nancyethomas noprognosticvalueaddedbyvitamindpathwaysnpstocurrentprognosticsystemformelanomasurvival AT shenyingfang noprognosticvalueaddedbyvitamindpathwaysnpstocurrentprognosticsystemformelanomasurvival AT jeffreyelee noprognosticvalueaddedbyvitamindpathwaysnpstocurrentprognosticsystemformelanomasurvival AT marianneberwick noprognosticvalueaddedbyvitamindpathwaysnpstocurrentprognosticsystemformelanomasurvival AT jihyunlee noprognosticvalueaddedbyvitamindpathwaysnpstocurrentprognosticsystemformelanomasurvival AT gemstudygroup noprognosticvalueaddedbyvitamindpathwaysnpstocurrentprognosticsystemformelanomasurvival |