The recognition that colorectal cancer (CRC) is a heterogeneous disease in terms of clinical behaviour and response to therapy translates into an urgent need for robust molecular disease subclassifiers that can explain this heterogeneity beyond current parameters (MSI, KRAS, BRAF). Attempts to fill this gap are emerging. The Cancer Genome Atlas (TGCA) reported two main CRC groups, based on the incidence and spectrum of mutated genes, and another paper reported an EMT expression signature defined subgroup. We performed a prior free analysis of CRC heterogeneity on 1113 CRC gene expression profiles and confronted our findings to established molecular determinants and clinical, histopathological and survival data. Unsupervised clustering based on gene modules allowed us to distinguish at least five different gene expression CRC subtypes, which we call surface crypt‐like, lower crypt‐like, CIMP‐H‐like, mesenchymal and mixed. A gene set enrichment analysis combined with literature search of gene module members identified distinct biological motifs in different subtypes. The subtypes, which were not derived based on outcome, nonetheless showed differences in prognosis. Known gene copy number variations and mutations in key cancer‐associated genes differed between subtypes, but the subtypes provided molecular information beyond that contained in these variables. Morphological features significantly differed between subtypes. The objective existence of the subtypes and their clinical and molecular characteristics were validated in an independent set of 720 CRC expression profiles. Our subtypes provide a novel perspective on the heterogeneity of CRC. The proposed subtypes should be further explored retrospectively on existing clinical trial datasets and, when sufficiently robust, be prospectively assessed for clinical relevance in terms of prognosis and treatment response predictive capacity. Original microarray data were uploaded to the ArrayExpress database (http://www.ebi.ac.uk/arrayexpress/) under Accession Nos E‐MTAB‐990 and E‐MTAB‐1026. © 2013 Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics. Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

Purpose: Our purpose was development and assessment of a BRAF-mutant gene expression signature for colon cancer (CC) and the study of its prognostic implications.Materials and Methods: A set of 668 stage II and III CC samples from the PETACC-3 (Pan-European Trails in Alimentary Tract Cancers) clinical trial were used to assess differential gene expression between c.1799T>A (p.V600E) BRAF mutant and non-BRAF, non-KRAS mutant cancers (double wild type) and to construct a gene expression–based classifier for detecting BRAF mutant samples with high sensitivity. The classifier was validated in independent data sets, and survival rates were compared between classifier positive and negative tumors.Results: A 64 gene-based classifier was developed with 96% sensitivity and 86% specificity for detecting BRAF mutant tumors in PETACC-3 and independent samples. A subpopulation of BRAF wild-type patients (30% of KRAS mutants, 13% of double wild type) showed a gene expression pattern and had poor overall survival and survival after relapse, similar to those observed in BRAF-mutant patients. Thus they form a distinct prognostic subgroup within their mutation class.Conclusion: A characteristic pattern of gene expression is associated with and accurately predicts BRAF mutation status and, in addition, identifies a population of BRAF mutated-like KRAS mutants and double wild-type patients with similarly poor prognosis. This suggests a common biology between these tumors and provides a novel classification tool for cancers, adding prognostic and biologic information that is not captured by the mutation status alone. These results may guide therapeutic strategies for this patient segment and may help in population stratification for clinical trials.

Introduction: As part of the MicroArray Quality Control (MAQC)-II project, this analysis examines how the choice of univariate feature-selection methods and classification algorithms may influence the performance of genomic predictors under varying degrees of prediction difficulty represented by three clinically relevant endpoints. Methods: We used gene-expression data from 230 breast cancers (grouped into training and independent validation sets), and we examined 40 predictors (five univariate feature-selection methods combined with eight different classifiers) for each of the three endpoints. Their classification performance was estimated on the training set by using two different resampling methods and compared with the accuracy observed in the independent validation set. Results: A ranking of the three classification problems was obtained, and the performance of 120 models was estimated and assessed on an independent validation set. The bootstrapping estimates were closer to the validation performance than were the cross-validation estimates. The required sample size for each endpoint was estimated, and both gene-level and pathway-level analyses were performed on the obtained models. Conclusions: We showed that genomic predictor accuracy is determined largely by an interplay between sample size and classification difficulty. Variations on univariate feature-selection methods and choice of classification algorithm have only a modest impact on predictor performance, and several statistically equally good predictors can be developed for any given classification problem.

To develop a comprehensive overview of copy number aberrations (CNAs) in stage-II/III colorectal cancer (CRC), we characterized 302 tumors from the PETACC-3 clinical trial. Microsatellite-stable (MSS) samples (n = 269) had 66 minimal common CNA regions, with frequent gains on 20 q (72.5%), 7 (41.8%), 8 q (33.1%) and 13 q (51.0%) and losses on 18 (58.6%), 4 q (26%) and 21 q (21.6%). MSS tumors have significantly more CNAs than microsatellite-instable (MSI) tumors: within the MSI tumors a novel deletion of the tumor suppressor WWOX at 16 q23.1 was identified (p<0.01). Focal aberrations identified by the GISTIC method confirmed amplifications of oncogenes including EGFR, ERBB2, CCND1, MET, and MYC, and deletions of tumor suppressors including TP53, APC, and SMAD4, and gene expression was highly concordant with copy number aberration for these genes. Novel amplicons included putative oncogenes such as WNK1 and HNF4A, which also showed high concordance between copy number and expression. Survival analysis associated a specific patient segment featured by chromosome 20 q gains to an improved overall survival, which might be due to higher expression of genes such as EEF1B2 and PTK6. The CNA clustering also grouped tumors characterized by a poor prognosis BRAF-mutant-like signature derived from mRNA data from this cohort. We further revealed non-random correlation between CNAs among unlinked loci, including positive correlation between 20 q gain and 8 q gain, and 20 q gain and chromosome 18 loss, consistent with co-selection of these CNAs. These results reinforce the non-random nature of somatic CNAs in stage-II/III CRC and highlight loci and genes that may play an important role in driving the development and outcome of this disease.