Show simple item record

Modeling intra-tumor protein expression heterogeneity in tissue microarray experiments

dc.contributor.authorShen, Ronglaien_US
dc.contributor.authorGhosh, Debashisen_US
dc.contributor.authorTaylor, Jeremy M. G.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2008-05-12T13:37:53Z
dc.date.available2009-06-01T20:08:52Zen_US
dc.date.issued2008-05-20en_US
dc.identifier.citationShen, Ronglai; Ghosh, Debashis; Taylor, Jeremy M. G. (2008). "Modeling intra-tumor protein expression heterogeneity in tissue microarray experiments." Statistics in Medicine 27(11): 1944-1959. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/58565>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0277-6715en_US
dc.identifier.issn1097-0258en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/58565
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=18300332&dopt=citationen_US
dc.description.abstractTissue microarrays (TMAs) measure tumor-specific protein expression via high-density immunohistochemical staining assays. They provide a proteomic platform for validating cancer biomarkers emerging from large-scale DNA microarray studies. Repeated observations within each tumor result in substantial biological and experimental variability. This variability is usually ignored when associating the TMA expression data with patient survival outcome. It generates biased estimates of hazard ratio in proportional hazards models. We propose a Latent Expression Index (LEI) as a surrogate protein expression estimate in a two-stage analysis. Several estimators of LEI are compared: an empirical Bayes, a full Bayes, and a varying replicate number estimator. In addition, we jointly model survival and TMA expression data via a shared random effects model. Bayesian estimation is carried out using a Markov chain Monte Carlo method. Simulation studies were conducted to compare the two-stage methods and the joint analysis in estimating the Cox regression coefficient. We show that the two-stage methods reduce bias relative to the naive approach, but still lead to under-estimated hazard ratios. The joint model consistently outperforms the two-stage methods in terms of both bias and coverage property in various simulation scenarios. In case studies using prostate cancer TMA data sets, the two-stage methods yield a good approximation in one data set whereas an insufficient one in the other. A general advice is to use the joint model inference whenever results differ between the two-stage methods and the joint analysis. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.en_US
dc.format.extent277255 bytes
dc.format.extent3118 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.publisherJohn Wiley & Sons, Ltd.en_US
dc.subject.otherMathematics and Statisticsen_US
dc.titleModeling intra-tumor protein expression heterogeneity in tissue microarray experimentsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelMedicine (General)en_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelStatistics and Numeric Dataen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPublic Healthen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelScienceen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelSocial Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, U.S.A.en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, U.S.A. ; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 307 East 63rd Street, 3rd Floor, New York, NY 10065, U.S.A.en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Statistics and Huck Institute of Life Sciences, Penn State University, University Park, PA, U.S.A.en_US
dc.identifier.pmid18300332en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/58565/1/3217_ftp.pdf
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sim.3217en_US
dc.identifier.sourceStatistics in Medicineen_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.