# Patent

## Title
Metastasis-associated gene profiling for identification of tumor tissue, subtyping, and prediction of prognosis of patients

## Abstract

Methods for determining a tumor in a human is disclosed. Also disclosed are methods for identifying adenocarcinoma, and methods for identifying squamous cell carcinoma in a human tumor sample. In addition, methods for predicting prognosis of metastasis and survival in a human having a tumor is disclosed.

## Background
RELATED APPLICATION
This application is a Continuation-In-Part (CIP) of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/180,637, filed on Jun. 25, 2002, now abandoned, which is herein incorporated by reference.


FIELD OF THE INVENTION
The present invention relates to methods using a gene expression profiling analysis (1) to determine whether a human sample is a tumor using a gene set containing nucleic acid sequences of SEQ ID NOS: 1-7, 8-17 or 1-17; (2) to identify whether a tumor tissue is an adenocarcinoma (using a gene set containing nucleic acid sequences of SEQ ID NOS: 15, and 18-21) or a squamous cell carcinoma (using a gene set containing nucleic acid sequences of SEQ ID NOS: 22-27); and (3) to predict the prognosis of survival and metastasis in humans with tumor (using a gene set containing nucleic acid sequences of SEQ ID NOS:19, and 28-42 or SEQ ID NOS: 19, 29, 31, 40, and 41), particularly for those humans who are at the early stage of lung cancer. The gene expression profiling is preferably performed by cDNA microarray-based techniques and/or Real-Time Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction (Real-Time RT-PCR), and analyzed by statistical means.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
Cancer is a group of diseases characterized by uncontrolled growth and spread of abnormal cells. If the spread is not controlled, it can result in death. Cancer is caused by both external factors (i.e., tobacco, chemicals and radiation) and internal factors (inherited mutations, hormones, immune conditions and mutations that occur from metabolism). These causal factors may act together or in sequence to initiate or promote carcinogenesis. Ten or more years may often pass between exposure to external factors and detectable cancer. Cancer is treated by surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, hormones and immunotherapy.
All cancers involve the malfunction of genes that control cell growth and division. About 5% to 10% of all cancers are clearly hereditary, in that an inherited genetic alteration predisposes the person to a very high risk of particular cancers. The remainder of cancers are not hereditary, but result from damage to genes (mutations) that occur throughout one's lifetime, either due to internal factors, such as hormones or the digestion of nutrients within the cells, or external factors, such as tobacco, chemicals or sunlight.
Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer death in the world (Jemal et al., CA Cancer J. for Clin. (2005) 55:10-30; Parkin et al., European J. of Cancer (2001) 37:S4-66). In 2005, lung cancer accounted for 13% of the cancer that was diagnosed. The incidence rate has been declining significantly in men, from a high of 102.1 per 100,000 in 1984 to 77.7 in 2001. In women, the rate decreased for the first time from 52.8 in 1998 to 49.1 in 2001, after a long period of increase.
Over 163,000 deaths due to lung cancer were reported in 2005. This accounts for approximately 29% of all cancer deaths. Since 1987, more women have died each year of lung cancer than from breast cancer. Death rates have continued to decline significantly in men since 1991 by about 1.9% per year. Female lung cancer death rates have recently reached a plateau after continuously increasing for several decades. Decreasing lung cancer incidence and mortality rates reflect decreased smoking rates over the past 30 years.
Cigarette smoking is by far the most important risk factor for lung cancer. Other risk factors include second hand smoke and occupational or environmental exposures to substances such as arsenic; some organic chemicals such as benzene; radon and asbestos; radiation exposure from occupational, medical, and environmental sources; air pollution and tuberculosis.
Cancers that begin in the lungs are divided into two major types, non-small cell lung cancer and small cell lung cancer, depending on how the cells look under a microscope. Each type of lung cancer grows and spreads in different ways and is treated differently. Non-small cell lung cancer is more common than small cell lung cancer, and it generally grows and spreads more slowly. There are three main types of non-small cell lung cancer. They are named for the type of cells in which the cancer develops: squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma and large cell carcinoma.
Squamous cell carcinoma is a cancer that begins in squamous cells, which are thin, flat cells that look like fish scales. Squamous cells are found in the tissue that forms the surface of the skin, the lining of the hollow organs of the body, and the passages of the respiratory and digestive tracts. Adenocarcinoma is a type of cancer that begins in cells that line certain internal organs and that have glandular (secretory) properties. Still further, large cell carcinoma is a type of cancer in which the cells are large and look abnormal in comparison to the surrounding cells when viewed under a microscope.
Lung cancer can also be classified as to where it is located before the actual type of cancer is identified. For example, lung cancer falls under the disease category of a neoplasm. A neoplasm is an abnormal mass of tissue that results when cells divide more than they should or do not die when they should. The neoplasm can then be further classified as thoracic neoplasms, respiratory tract neoplasms and lung neoplasms depending on where the cells are located. The difference between these locations has to do with definitively locating where the neoplasm exists. For example, a thoracic neoplasm exists in the chest region, a respiratory tract neoplasm includes all of the organs that are involved in breathing (i.e., the nose, throat, larynx, trachea, bronchi, and lungs) and a lung neoplasm is exclusively found in one of a pair of organs in the chest that supplies the body with oxygen, and removes carbon dioxide from the body.
Past efforts at early detection have not yet demonstrated the ability to reduce mortality. Chest x-ray, analysis of cells in sputum, and fiber optic examination of the of the bronchial passages have shown limited effectiveness in improving survival or determining prognosis. Newer tests, such as low-dose spiral computed tomography scans and molecular markers in the sputum, have produced promising results in detecting lung cancers at earlier, more operable stages, when survival is more likely. However, there are considerable risks associated with lung biopsy and surgery which must be considered when evaluating the risks and benefits of screening.
In addition, the current staging system of NSCLC is inadequate to predict outcome, when patients have the same clinical and pathological features. This is evident because approximately 30% of patients that present with NSCLC present with early stage disease and receive potentially curative treatment. However, up to 40% of these patients will relapse within 5 years (Hoffman et al., Lancet (2000) 355:479-485; Mountain, Chest (1997) 111:1710-1717; and Naruke et al., J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. (1988) 96:440-447).
The introduction of molecular approaches deliver more information for identifying patients at high risk of recurrence or metastasis after resection, which might be improved by the management of NSCLC patients. Gene expression profiling has been shown to be able to classify patients with different survivals as demonstrated by Beer et al. (Beer et al., Nat. Med. (2002) 8:816-824 and Wigle et al., Cancer Res. (2002) 62:3005-3008). In addition, a considerable proportion of clinically early-staged patients were designated through gene expression profile as high-risk for poor prognosis. Nevertheless, clinical application of this gene profiling approach might be still limited by the enormity of the number of genes employed (Ramaswamy, N. Engl. J. Med. (2004) 350:1814-1816). Furthermore, most of genes selected for profiling were substantially heterogeneous across studies for lung cancer, with only very few genes being consistently included (Endoh et al., J. Clin. Oncol. (2004) 22:811-9).
In addition, several recent microarray studies revealed that gene expression profiles can be used to classify the subclasses of histopathological type of lung carcinomas (e.g., adenocarcinoma and SCC). (Bhattacharjee et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (2001) 98:13790-13795; Garber et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (2001) 98:13784-13789; McDoniels-Silvers et al., Clin. Cancer Res. (2002) 8:1127-1138; McDoniels-Silvers et al., Neoplasia (2002) 4:141-150; and Nacht et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (2001) 98:15203-15208). Current data show that the optimal gene expression profile for discriminating subgroups of lung cancer might vary in different populations. For instance, the mutation rate of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) in the populations of East Asian ethnicity (including Taiwan and Japan) have been found to have a higher response rate to treatment than other races (Chou et al., Clin. Cancer Res. (2005) 11:3750-7; Huang et al., Clin. Cancer Res. (2004) 10:8195-8203; Shigematsu et al., J. Natl. Cancer Inst. (2005) 97:339-346).
The inventors of the present invention have previously identified more than 600 genes as being metastasis associated. In the invention to be presented in the following sections, the authors further describe their findings of specific sets of genes which can determine the risk of developing a tumor in a human; identify the subclass of lung cancer, especially distinguishing adenocarcinoma from squamous cell carcinoma; and predict the prognosis of a human with a tumor.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
The present invention provides (1) a method for determining whether a human sample is a tumor; (2) a method for identifying whether the tumor in the human is an adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma; and (3) a method for predicting the prognosis of a human having a tumor.
The first method requires a comparison of a gene expression of a gene set of a human sample to the corresponding gene expression of the same gene set in a control, which can be standardized data, a gene expression of the corresponding gene set in a healthy human subject, or a gene expression in a tissue of the normal area of the same human subject. The expression of the genes described herein is determined either by a real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) or by a cDNA microarray-based technique, which determines the gene expression based on a logarithmic intensity.
A 7-gene set and a 10-gene set have been selected for determination of whether the human sample is a tumor by a Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The gene expression of each gene in either the 7-gene set or the 10-gene set is compared to the corresponding gene expression in the control and further analyzed by a discriminant analysis and/or optionally a hierarchical clustering analysis. The 7-gene set includes THBS2 (SEQ ID NO:1), FAP (SEQ ID NO:2), IGFBP3 (SEQ ID NO:3), PLAU (SEQ ID NO:4), MCM4 (SEQ ID NO:5), MMP1 (SEQ ID NO:6), and CDC20 (SEQ ID NO:7). The genes in this group are characterized by their higher gene expression in the human tumor tissue than those of the control, preferably to be twice and significantly (i.e., with a p value of less than 0.05) higher than that of the control.
The 10-gene set includes ADARB1 (SEQ ID NO:8), THBD (SEQ ID NO:9), NR4A1 (SEQ ID NO:10), TGFBR2 (SEQ ID NO:11), SPARCL1 (SEQ ID NO:12), CAV1 (SEQ ID NO:13), ADRB2 (SEQ ID NO:14), K1AA1102 (SEQ ID NO:15), TGFBR3 (SEQ ID NO:16), and GPM6A (SEQ ID NO:17). The genes in this group are characterized by their lower gene expression in the human tumor tissue than those of the control, preferably to be twice lower and significantly (i.e., with a p value of less than 0.05) than that of the control.
Alternatively, a 17-gene set, which combines the 7-gene set and the 10-gene set, can also be used to determine the human tumor.
The human sample which can be used for determining the gene expression is preferably human tissue. The type of tumor that can be determined by this method includes, but is not limited to, respiratory tract neoplasm, thoracic neoplasm, lung cancer, adenocarcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma.
The second method applies to determination of a subtype of lung cancer, i.e., an adenocarcinoma or a squamous cell carcinoma in a human sample which has been pre-determined to be tumorous. To determine whether the tumor tissue is an adenocarcinoma, a gene expression using a microarray-based technology of each gene in a 5-gene set in the human sample which has already been pre-determined to be tumorous has been identified. The 5-gene set includes MUC1 (SEQ ID NO:18), ErbB3 (SEQ ID NO:19), KIAA1102 (SEQ ID NO:15), PTPRU (SEQ ID NO:20), and SCP2 (SEQ ID NO:21). The 5-gene set is selected by a Wilcoxon rank sum test. The genes in this group are up regulated, preferably by more than 1.7 fold in gene expression, and significantly different (preferably with a significant coefficient p value of less than 0.05), in the human sample. The gene expression profile of the 5-gene set is performed by a cDNA microarray-based technology or a Real-Time RT-PCR further analyzed by a discriminant analysis and optionally a hierarchical clustering analysis.
To determine whether the sample is a squamous cell carcinoma, a 6-gene set in the human sample which has already been pre-determined to be tumorous has been selected by a Wilcoxon rank-sum test. This 6-gene set includes SLC43A3 (SEQ ID NO:22), MXD1 (SEQ ID NO:23), S100A8 (SEQ ID NO:24), ODC1 (SEQ ID NO:25), PIK3CA (SEQ ID NO:26), and CMKOR1 (SEQ ID NO:27). The genes in this group are up regulated, preferably by more than 1.7 fold, and significantly different (preferably with a significant coefficient p value of less than 0.05), in the human sample. The gene expression profile of the 6-gene set is performed by a cDNA microarray-based technology or a Real-Time RT-PCR and further analyzed by a discriminant analysis and optionally a hierarchical clustering analysis. The sequence in SEQ ID NO:22 can be replaced with SEQ ID NOS:44 and 45, which are in fact the same gene with slightly different length.
The third method applies to a prediction of the prognosis whether a human has a tumor, which includes obtaining a sample from the human and determining a gene expression of each gene in a 16-gene set. The 16-gene set includes ANXA5 (SEQ ID NO:28), LCK (SEQ ID NO:29), FRAP1 (SEQ ID NO:30), STAT1 (SEQ ID NO:31), NF1 (SEQ ID NO:32), HGF (SEQ ID NO:33), HMMR (SEQ ID NO:34), IRF4 (SEQ ID NO:35), ZNF264 (SEQ ID NO:36), ErbB3 (SEQ ID NO:19), STAT2 (SEQ ID NO:37), CPEB4 (SEQ ID NO:38), RNF4 (SEQ ID NO:39), DUSP6 (SEQ ID NO:40), MMD (SEQ ID NO:41), and DLG2 (SEQ ID NO:42). The individual gene expression of each gene in this 16-gene set can be used in combination with the regression coefficient for each gene to calculate a risk score, which has the following equation:




  
    Risk
    ⁢
    
      
    
    ⁢
    Score
  
  =
  
    
      
        -
        1.09
      
      ×
      ANXA
      ⁢
      
        
      
      ⁢
      5
    
    -
    
      0.84
      ×
      LCK
    
    -
    
      0.77
      ×
      FRAP
      ⁢
      
        
      
      ⁢
      1
    
    -
    
      0.58
      ×
      STAT
      ⁢
      
        
      
      ⁢
      1
    
    +
    
      0.47
      ×
      NF
      ⁢
      
        
      
      ⁢
      1
    
    +
    
      0.51
      ×
      HGF
    
    +
    
      0.52
      ×
      HMMR
    
    +
    
      0.52
      ×
      IRF
      ⁢
      
        
      
      ⁢
      4
    
    +
    
      0.55
      ×
      ZNF
      ⁢
      
        
      
      ⁢
      264
    
    +
    
      0.55
      ×
      ErB
      ⁢
      
        
      
      ⁢
      3
    
    +
    
      0.59
      ×
      STAT
      ⁢
      
        
      
      ⁢
      2
    
    +
    
      0.59
      ×
      CPEB
      ⁢
      
        
      
      ⁢
      4
    
    +
    
      0.65
      ×
      RNF
      ⁢
      
        
      
      ⁢
      4
    
    +
    
      0.75
      ×
      DUSP
      ⁢
      
        
      
      ⁢
      6
    
    +
    
      0.92
      ×
      MMD
    
    +
    
      1.32
      ×
      DLG
      ⁢
      
        
      
      ⁢
      2
    
  




The risk score can be used to group the human into either a high-risk or a low-risk group for having the tumor.
Alternatively, a 5-gene set has been selected for predicting prognosis of a human having a tumor using real-time RT-PCR. This 5-gene set includes LCK (SEQ ID NO:29), STAT1 (SEQ ID NO:31), ErbB3 (SEQ ID NO:19), DUSP6 (SEQ ID NO:40), and MMD (SEQ ID NO:41), which is selected by a univariate Cox's proportional hazards regression analysis. The gene expression profile of this 5-gene set is analyzed by a decision tree model.



BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF FIGURES
FIG. 1 shows Kaplan-Meier survival curves (overall survival for the left column and relapse-free survival for the right column) for the following four scenarios: (A) microarray-based 16 genes in the training dataset (n=63) with the median of risk score as the cut-off point for subgrouping; (B) microarray-based 16 genes in the testing dataset (n=62) using the same cut-off point derived from the training dataset; (C) real-time RT-PCR-based 5 genes predicted patients by decision tree model in the subsample (n=101); (D) real-time RT-PCR-based 5 genes predicted patients by decision tree model in Stage I and stage II patients stratified from the subsample (n=59).
FIG. 2 shows Real-time RT-PCR-based 5 genes predictive model in the independent cohort (n=60) and Kaplan-Meier survival curves for overall survival. (A) Whole population of independent cohort (n=60); (B) Stage I and stage II patients stratified from the independent cohort (n=42).
FIG. 3 shows color-gram (training dataset for the left column and testing dataset for the right column) for the following three scenarios and the two-dimensional hierarchical clustering analysis columns represented genes and rows represented specimens and represented the level of gene expression from blue (low) to red (high)) for (A) and (B): (A) 17 gene expression profiles for identification of cancer and the spectrum of normal distribution, from −2.7 to 2.7 arbitrary unit B 11 ene expression profiles for subtyping of cancer and the spectrum of normal distribution, from −2.4 to 2.4 (arbitrary unit); (C) 16 gene expression profiles for prediction of metastasis and survival, the white-to-red spectrum on the top represented the risk of patients from low to high, rows represented risk and protective genes, column represented patients, and the blue-to-red spectrum from −2.3 to 2.3 represented the levels of gene expression.
FIG. 4 shows a Decision Tree Model which was built on the basis of samples analyzed by real-time RT-PCR. Information in each node includes the node number (written on the top) and the sample number classified into high risk (as High indicated) and low risk (as Low indicated), which were classified by the prognosis prediction model using microarray assay data. Classification of a new sample (or specimen) is determined in which terminal node of the new sample (or specimen) would be contained. For instance, Node 1 contains the entire subset (101 relative gene expression measurements; 57 from High risk group and 44 from Low risk group). The first split is based on expression of “ErbB3” gene: relative gene expression measurement (by real-time RT-PCR) of less than 0.15 form node 3 and the other measurements form node 2.



DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
One feature of this invention is to provide a method for determining whether the human sample is a tumor. Other features of this invention include a method of differentiating between two tumor types in a human and a method of predicting the prognosis of humans with a tumor. The tumors considered in this invention include thoracic neoplasms, respiratory tract neoplasms, lung neoplasms, lung cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, adenocarcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma.
The method of determining whether the human sample is a tumor requires that a sample be taken from a human. The sample comprises tissue sample, which includes, but not limited to, epithelial tissue, connective tissue, muscle tissue and nervous tissue. The epithelial tissue samples include simple epithelia (i.e., squamous, cuboidal and columner epithelium), pseudo-stratified epithelia (i.e., columnar) and stratified epithelia (i.e., squamous). The connective tissue samples include embryonic connective tissue (i.e., mesenchyme and mucoid), ordinary connective tissue (i.e., loose and dense), and special connective tissue (i.e., cartilage, bone, and adipose). The muscle tissue sample include smooth (i.e., involuntary) and striated (i.e., voluntary and involuntary). The nervous tissue sample include neurons and supportive cells. In addition, the sample may contain cells unique to the pulmonary system, such as cells from the trachea, bronchi, bronchioli, and alveoli. Cells unique to the mouth and throat are also included such as all cell types exposed in the mouth that include cheek lining, tongue, floor and roof of the mouths, gums, throat as well as sputum samples.
The method also requires that a control, which is a normal sample, be taken from a human. The normal sample comprises tissue samples, such as epithelial tissue, connective tissue, muscle tissue and nervous tissue. The epithelial tissue samples include simple epithelia (i.e., squamous, cuboidal and columner epithelium), pseudo-stratified epithelia (i.e., columnar) and stratified epithelia (i.e., squamous). The connective tissue samples include embryonic connective tissue (i.e., mesenchyme and mucoid), ordinary connective tissue (i.e., loose and dense), and special connective tissue (i.e., cartilage, bone, and adipose). The muscle tissue sample includes smooth (i.e., involuntary) and striated (i.e., voluntary and involuntary). The nervous tissue sample includes neurons and supportive cells. In addition, the sample may contain cells unique to the pulmonary system, such as cells from the trachea, bronchi, bronchioli, and alveoli. Cells unique to the mouth and throat are also included such as all cell types exposed in the mouth that include cheek lining, tongue, floor and roof of the mouths, gums, throat as well as sputum samples.
The normal sample is defined as a sample expressing those genes that are included in Table 1 either from the same patient or from a healthy human subject. After the analytical model is defined, it becomes standardized data. By that time, it is only necessary to analyze the tumor sample from the patient rather than comparing the tumor sample to the normal sample.
Upon taking the sample from a human, the total RNAs are isolated and extracted from the specimen and are amplified. The amplification procedure is based on antisense RNA (aRNA) amplification, and involves a series of enzymatic reactions resulting in linear amplification of exceedingly small messenger RNA in array analysis. The procedure begins with total or poly(A) RNA that is reversely transcribed. After first-strand synthesis, the reaction is treated with RNase H to cleave the mRNA into small fragments. These small RNA fragments serve as primers during a second-strand synthesis reaction.
Once RNA is extracted from the sample, it is then converted to cDNA or cRNA in the procedure above in preparation for the microarray analysis, where the use of microarrays is to quantify mRNAs transcribed from different genes that encode different proteins. The copies may also be amplified by RT-PCR. Fluorescent tags or digoxigenin-dUTP are then enzymatically incorporated into the newly synthesized cDNA/cRNA or can be chemically attached to the new strands of DNA or RNA. A cDNA or cRNA molecule that contains a sequence complementary to one of the single-stranded probe sequences on the array is then hybridized, via base pairing (more at DNA), to the spot at which the complementary reporters are affixed. The spot is then fluoresced (or glowed) when examined using a microarray scanner.
Microarrays can be fabricated using a variety of technologies, including printing with fine-pointed pins onto glass slides, photolithography using pre-made masks, photolithography using dynamic micromirror devices, ink-jet printing, or electrochemistry on microelectrode arrays.
Increased or decreased fluorescence intensity indicates that cells in the sample have recently transcribed, or ceased transcription, of a gene that contains the probed sequence (“recently,” because cells tend to degrade RNAs soon after transcription). The intensity of the fluorescence is roughly proportional to the number of copies of a particular mRNA that were present and thus roughly indicates the activity or expression level of that gene. Arrays can paint a picture or “profile” of which genes in the genome are active in a particular cell type and under a particular condition that can be seen with the colorimetric assay.
The expressed gene sets to which this invention is directed are selected from those SEQ. IDs, Unigene Cluster numbers, Genbank Accession numbers, and GI numbers listed on Table 1 below.












TABLE 11







SEQ ID


ACCESSION













NO.
UNIGENE ID
GENE SYMBOL
NUMBER
GI NUMBER















1
HS.371147
THBS2
NM_003247
GI:40317627



 


2
HS.516493
FAP
NM_004460
GI:16933539


 


3
HS.450230
IGFBP3
NM_000598
GI:62243067


 


4
HS.77274
PLAU
NM_002658
GI:53729348


 


5
HS.460184
MCM4
NM_182746
GI:33469916


 


6
HS.83169
MMP1
NM_002421
GI:13027798


 


7
HS.524947
CDC20
NM_001255
GI:4557436


 


8
HS.474018
ADARB1
NM_015833
GI:75709170


 


9
HS.2030
THBD
NM_000361
GI:40288292


 


10
HS.524430
NR4A1
NM_173157
GI:27894343


 


11
HS.82028
TGFBR2
NM_003242
GI:67782323


 


12
HS.62886
SPARCL1
NM_004684
GI:21359870


 


13
HS.74034
CAV1
NM_001753
GI:15451855


 


14
HS.591251
ADRB2
NM_000024
GI:15718673


 


15
HS.335163
KIAA1102
NM_014988
GI:55741670


 


16
HS.482390
TGFBR3
NM_003243
GI:56682965


 


17
HS.75819
GPM6A
NM_201592
GI:42476104


 


18
HS.89603
MUC1
NM_002456
GI:65301116


 


19
HS.593522
ErbB3
NM_001982
GI:54792099


 


20
HS.19718
PTPRU
NM_005704
GI:19743934


 


21
HS.476365
SCP2
NM_002979
GI:56243511


 


22
HS.99962
SLC43A3
NM_014096
GI:46410928


 


23
HS.468908
MXD1
NM_002357
GI:70167417


 


24
HS.416073
S100A8
NM_002964
GI:21614543


 


25
HS.467701
ODC1
NM_002539
GI:4505488


 


26
HS.478376
PIK3CA
NM_006218
GI:54792081


 


27
HS.471751
CMKOR1
NM_020311
GI:31083343


 


28
HS.480653
ANXA5
NM_001154
GI:4809273


 


29
HS.470627
LCK
NM_005356
GI:20428651


 


30
HS.338207
FRAP1
NM_004958
GI:19924298


 


31
HS.565365
STAT1
NM_007315
GI:21536299


 


32
HS.567266
NF1
NM_000267
GI:4557792


 


33
HS.396530
HGF
NM_000601
GI:58533168


 


34
HS.72550
HMMR
NM_012484
GI:7108348


 


35
HS.401013
IRF4
NM_002460
GI:4505286


 


36
HS.590962
ZNF264
NM_003417
GI:55769562


 


37
HS.530595
STAT2
NM_005419
GI:38202247


 


38
HS.127126
CPEB4
NM_030627
GI:32698754


 


39
HS.66394
RNF4
NM_002938
GI:34305289


 


40
HS.298654
DUSP6
NM_022652
GI:42764686


 


41
HS.463483
MMD
NM_012329
GI:52630444


 


42
HS.503453
DLG2
NM_001364
GI:91199537


 


43
HS.590872
TBP
NM_003194
GI:61744433


 


44
HS.99962
SLC43A3
NM_017611
GI:40788008


 


45
HS.99962
SLC43A3
NM_199329
GI:41056258





1MCM4 includes GI:33469918 and GI:33469916; ADARB1 includes GI:75709171, GI:75709171, and GI:75709167; NR4A1 includes GI:27894343, GI:27894342, and GI:27894345; GPM6A includes GI:42476104, GI:42476106, and GI:42476107; MUC1 includes GI:33300664 and GI:65301116; PTPRU includes GI:19743930 and GI:19743932; STAT1 includes GI:21536299 and GI:21536300; HMMR includes GI:7108348 and GI:7108350; DUSP6 includes GI:42764686 and GI:4276482.






In order to determine whether the genes representing the tumor risk are present in a patient, the gene expression of a set of genes in a normal sample is compared to that of the sample taken from the patient. The gene set for determining the tumor sample is selected by a Wilcoxon signed-rank test. A 7-gene set, which includes THBS2 (SEQ ID NO:1), FAP (SEQ ID NO:2), IGFBP3 (SEQ ID NO:3), PLAU (SEQ ID NO:4), MCM4 (SEQ ID NO:5), MMP1 (SEQ ID NO:6), and CDC20 (SEQ ID NO:7); a 10-gene set, which includes ADARB1 (SEQ ID NO:8), THBD (SEQ ID NO:9), NR4A1 (SEQ ID NO:10), TGFBR2 (SEQ ID NO:11), SPARCL1 (SEQ ID NO:12), CAV1 (SEQ ID NO:13), ADRB2 (SEQ ID NO:14), K1AA1102 (SEQ ID NO:15), TGFBR3 (SEQ ID NO:16), and GPM6A (SEQ ID NO:17); and a 17-gene set (which combines the 7-gene set and the 10-gene set) are chosen for this study.
The normal sample can comprise those cells that possess expression characteristics that are not indicative of the presence of a tumor. In this manner, when the gene expression level is measured using the procedure as described above, if the intensity of the fluorescence probe from the microarray of the sample is greater than (for those genes that are up regulated in cancer tissue) or lower than (for those genes that are down regulated in cancer tissue) that of the normal sample, the chances for the patients to develop a tumor can be enhanced (fluorescent intensity comprises the scanned and quantified image of a colorimetric signal using specialized microarray analysis software such as GenPix Pro 5.0 (Axon Instruments)).
The normal sample is a term used to denote a control from a healthy subject or from the normal areas of the same patient, since it is the model against which the samples from the patients are compared. This control is based on the microarray intensities from such healthy subject that did not have genetic markers for tumorous conditions. In addition, after such a control model is established, standardized data can be obtained, and the gene expression level from the sample of a patient can be compared directly to the standardized data instead of the normal sample.
In determining whether a human has a tumor further requires that the gene expression level of those normal and potentially tumorous genes be compared to the control. When the genes are compared, those genes with a greater, or sometimes lower expression level will be considered as posing a risk to developing a tumor, depending upon the nature of the metastasis-associated genes. See Table 4 infra for details. Preferably, the expression level of those genes in the sample that may be designated as tumorous will have an expression level that is either twice elevated or twice suppressed than that of the normal sample.
In analyzing the genes selected, a Fisher discriminant analysis and/or a hierarchical clustering analysis are applied to construct gene profiles for the identification of tumor tissue.
Fisher Discriminant Analysis works by combining the variables in such a way that the differences between the predefined groups are maximized. Hierarchical Cluster Analysis is defined as grouping or segmenting a collection of objects into subsets or “clusters”, such that those within each cluster are more closely related to one another than objects assigned to different clusters. In the hierarchical clustering analysis, the data are not partitioned into a particular cluster in a single step. Instead, a series of partitions takes place, which may run from a single cluster containing all objects to n clusters each containing a single object.
In differentiating between two tumor types, i.e., adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma, a tissue that has been pre-determined to be tumorous is obtained and a gene expression profiling analysis, using either microarray based technologies or real-time RT-PCR technology, for a selected set of genes is performed. The gene set is chosen by Wilcoxon rank-sum test. For identification of adenocarcinoma, a 5-gene set, which includes MUC1 (SEQ ID NO:18), ErbB3 (SEQ ID NO:19), KIAA1102 (SEQ ID NO:15), PTPRU (SEQ ID NO:20), and SCP2 (SEQ ID NO:21), is chosen. For identification of squamous cell carcinoma, a 6-gene set, which includes SLC43A3 (SEQ ID NO:22), MXD1 (SEQ ID NO:23), S100A8 (SEQ ID NO:24), ODC1 (SEQ ID NO:25), PIK3CA (SEQ ID NO:26), and CMKOR1 (SEQ ID NO:27), is selected. The genes that show at least about 1.7 fold up regulated and have a significant coefficient p value of less than 0.05 are chosen. The gene expression level is further analyzed by a discriminant analysis or a hierarchical clustering analysis.
The method of predicting prognosis of humans with a tumor requires that the tumor sample be subject to individual gene expression analysis for a chosen set of genes. A 16-gene set, which includes ANXA5 (SEQ ID NO:28), LCK (SEQ ID NO:29), FRAP1 (SEQ ID NO:30), STAT1 (SEQ ID NO:31), NF1 (SEQ ID NO:32), HGF (SEQ ID NO:33), HMMR (SEQ ID NO:34), IRF4 (SEQ ID NO:35), ZNF264 (SEQ ID NO:36), ErbB3 (SEQ ID NO:19), STAT2 (SEQ ID NO:37), CPEB4 (SEQ ID NO:38), RNF4 (SEQ ID NO:39), DUSP6 (SEQ ID NO:40), MMD (SEQ ID NO:41), and DLG2 (SEQ ID NO:42), has been selected. Alternatively, a 5-gene set has been selected for predicting prognosis of a human having a tumor using real-time RT-PCR. This 5-gene set includes LCK (SEQ ID NO:29), STAT1 (SEQ ID NO:31), ErbB3 (SEQ ID NO:19), DUSP6 (SEQ ID NO:40), and MMD (SEQ ID NO:41).
The intensity of those genes or gene sets are then quantified, thereby allowing the genes either in individually or in sets to be classified into a first set where the intensity is in the 0-25% range, a second set where the intensity is in the 25% or greater-50% range, a third set where the intensity is in the 50% or greater-75% range and a fourth set where the intensity is in the 75% or greater-100% range.
After classification of the gene sets, a univariate Cox's proportional hazards regression analysis is then performed for each gene thereby allowing the selection of overall survival associated genes. A risk score is then determined for the individual patients that comprise the summation of multiplying the regression coefficient of the selected gene by the corresponding expression intensity.
Cox regression (or proportional hazards regression) is a method for investigating the effect of several variables upon the time a specified event takes to happen. In the context of an outcome such as death this is known as Cox regression for survival analysis. The method does not assume any particular “survival model” but it is not truly non-parametric because it does assume that the effects of the predictor variables upon survival are constant over time and are additive in one scale.
Based on the median risk score, patients are then categorized as having a high or low-risk of surviving or having a relapse free survival. This is determined by a comparison to the corresponding Kaplan-Meier estimates of overall survival and relapse free survival. The Kaplan-Meier method is a nonparametric (actuarial) technique for estimating time-related events (the survivorship function). Ordinarily it is used to analyze death as an outcome. It may be used effectively to analyze time to an endpoint, such as remission. See FIG. 1.
As shown in FIG. 1, the Kaplan-Meier survival curves wherein overall survival is shown in the left column and relapse-free survival (relapse free survival is defined as the return of symptoms and signs of a disease such as a tumor after a period of improvement) is shown in the right column, represent the following four scenarios: (A) microarray-based 16 genes in the training dataset (n=63) with the median of risk score as the cut-off point for subgrouping; (B) microarray-based 16 genes in the testing dataset (n=62) using the same cut-off point derived from the training dataset; (C) real-time RT-PCR-based 5 genes predicted patients by decision tree model in the sub-sample (n=101); (D) real-time RT-PCR-based 5 genes predicted patients by Decision Tree Model in Stage I and stage II patients stratified from the sub-sample (n=59).
FIG. 2 further demonstrates a real-time RT-PCR-based 5 gene predictive model with an independent cohort (n=60) and Kaplan-Meier survival curves showing overall survival. The curve in (A) represents a whole population of independent cohort (n=60) and the curve in (B) represents stage I and stage II patients stratified from the independent cohort (n=42).
A Decision Tree is defined as taking input such as an object or situation described by a set of properties, and thereby outputting a yes/no decision. Decision Trees therefore represent Boolean functions. Functions with a larger range of outputs can also be represented. The Decision Tree considered in this invention is shown in FIG. 4.
The Decision Tree Model of FIG. 4 was built on the basis of samples analyzed by real-time RT-PCR. Information in each node includes the node number (written on the top) and the sample number classified into high risk (as High indicated) and low risk (as Low indicated), which were classified by the prognosis prediction model using microarray assay data. Classification of a new sample (or specimen) determines in which terminal node the new sample (or specimen) would be contained. For instance, Node 1 contains the entire subset (101 relative gene expression measurements; 57 from High risk group and 44 from Low risk group). The first split is based on expression of “ErbB3” gene: relative gene expression measurement (by real-time RT-PCR) of less than 0.15 form node 3 and the other measurements form node 2.
The following experimental designs are illustrative, but not limiting the scope of the present invention. Reasonable variations, such as those occur to reasonable artisan, can be made herein without departing from the scope of the present invention.
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNS
Materials and Methods
1. Patients and Specimens
Lung tumor and adjacent normal tissue specimens were obtained from 188 patients who underwent surgical resection at the Taichung Veterans General Hospital from November 1999 to June 2004. The detailed clinicopathological features of the patients and tissues are shown in Table 2.







TABLE 2







Clinicopathologic Characteristic of Patients (n = 188)










Characteristic
No. of Patients (%)







Age
65.8 ± 11.3











Gender





Male
141
(75)



Female
47
(25)



Stage



I
73
(39)



II
36
(20)



III
55
(29)



IV
12
(6)



Not defined
12
(6)



Primary Tumor



T1 and T2
138
(73)



T3 and T4
46
(25)



Not defined
4
(2)



Regional Lymph Nodes



N0
90
(48)



N1, N2, and N3
83
(44)



Not defined
15
(8)



Cell Type



Adenocarcinoma
101
(54)



Squamous cell carcinoma
71
(38)



Others
16
(8)










2. Human cDNA Microarray Analysis

Human EST clones with the putative gene names were obtained from previous studies as described in Chen et al. (2001) (Chen et al., Cancer Res. (2001) 61:5223-5230), which is herein incorporated by reference. Each matrix on membrane array was constructed with 672 sequence-verified gene probes, consisting of 658 previously selected genes and 14 controls. GAPDH gene was used as positive control and spotted seven times on each matrix. Seven negative controls were gene fragments originating from plants. Every membrane contains two identical matrices and was used for hybridization analysis of one sample. Four micrograms of total RNA was isolated from the specimen and amplified using a RNA amplification kit (MessageAmpTM aRNA Kit, Ambion Inc., TX, USA), which subsequently was labeled with digoxigenin during reverse transcription as described in Chen et al. (1998). (Chen et al., Genomics (1998) 51:313-324). All of the assay procedures, including hybridization, color development, image analysis, and spot quantification, were performed as described in Chen et al. (1998, 2001 and 2005) (Chen et al., Cancer Res. (2001) 61:5223-5230; Chen et al., Genomics (1998) 51:313-324; and Chen et al., J. Clin. Oncol. (2005) 23:953-964).
3. Data Pretreatment
Step 1—Averaging Intensities
The average of two duplicated spots for each gene probe on every membrane microarray was obtained for next procedure.
Step 2—Normalization
The intensity average was rescaled using quantile normalization method, which is a method to make the distribution of probe intensities the same for every microarray. This process helped to normalize a set of chips to minimize non-biological differences that may exist, without choosing either a baseline chip to which all chips were normalized or working in a pairwise manner as described in Bolstad et al. (Bolstad et al., Bioinformatics (2003) 19:185-193).
Commercial microarray data software, such as Avadis, was used to process the quantile normalization and rescaling by ranking of all intensity data of each gene as described by Bolstad et al. and as shown in the AvadisTM user manual (Bolstad et al., Bioinformatics (2003) 19:185-193; AvadisTM (2004) AvadisTM user manual. USA, Strand Genomic Pvt Ltd.).
Step 3—Background Setting
The background intensity was reset at 3,000, when intensity data of the gene is less than or equal to 3,000, in order to identify noise signals derived from those insignificant genes as described by Chen et al. (2005) (Chen et al., J. Clin. Oncol. (2005) 23:953-964).
Step 4—Logarithmic Transformation
All pretreated data was then transformed by a logarithm with base 2.
Step 5—Filtration
The coefficient of variation (CV) of each gene was then calculated for filtering the insignificant genes. If the CV of a gene was less than 3%, the gene was then excluded from further analysis.
4. Data Grouping
Microarray data obtained from sample pairs, including tumor and adjacent normal tissue specimens, were randomly separated into training dataset and testing dataset before the statistical analysis. There were no significant differences in clinicopathologic features between these two sets for these three tasks, respectively. See Table 3.







TABLE 3







Summary of Clinicopathologic Features of Dataset











Training Set No.
Testing Set No.



Characteristic
of Patients (%)
of Patients (%)
P value










(A) Identification of Cancer (n = 188 pairs)










Age
65.0 ± 11
66.5 ± 11
0.39†


Gender


Male
70 (74.5)
71 (75.5)
1.00‡


Female
24 (25.5)
23 (24.5)


Stage


I
36 (40.9)
37 (42.1)
0.958§


II
18 (20.5)
18 (20.4)


III
27 (30.7)
28 (31.8)


IV
7 (7.9)
5 (5.7)


Primary Tumor


T1 and T2
64 (68.8)
74 (81.3)
0.06‡


T3 and T4
29 (31.2)
17 (18.7)


Regional Lymph Nodes


N0
49 (54.4)
41 (49.4)
0.54‡


N1, N2, and N3
41 (45.6)
42 (50.6)


Cell Type


Adenocarcinoma
53 (56.4)
48 (51.0)
0.55§


Squamous cell carcinoma
32 (34.0)
39 (41.5)


Others
9 (9.6)
7 (7.5)







(B) Subtyping of Cancer (n = 172)










Age
64.9 ± 12
66.6 ± 11
0.30†


Gender


Male
64 (73.6)
67 (78.8)
0.48‡


Female
23 (26.4)
18 (21.2)


Stage


I
30 (36.6)
35 (44.9)
0.54§


II
20 (24.4)
13 (16.7)


III
26 (31.7)
26 (33.3)


IV
6 (7.3)
4 (5.1)


Primary Tumor


T1 and T2
65 (75.6)
60 (73.2)
0.72‡


T3 and T4
21 (24.4)
22 (23.8)


Regional Lymph Nodes


N0
37 (46.3)
43 (55.1)
0.27‡


N1, N2, and N3
43 (53.7)
35 (44.9)


Cell Type


Adenocarcinoma
51 (58.6)
50 (58.8)
1.00‡


Squamous cell carcinoma
36 (41.40
35 (41.2)







(C) Prediction of Survival and Metastasis (n = 125)










Age
65.9 ± 9.6
65.7 ± 9.6
0.56†


Gender


Male
48 (76.2)
53 (85)  
0.26‡


Female
15 (23.8)
 9 (14.5)


Stage


I
25 (39.7)
23 (37.1)
0.08§


II
10 (15.9)
20 (32.3)


III
28 (44.4)
19 (30.6)


Primary Tumor


T1 and T2
44 (69.8)
46 (74.2)
0.69‡


T3 and T4
19 (30.2)
16 (25.8)


Regional Lymph Nodes


N0
27 (42.9)
33 (53.2)
0.28‡


N1, N2, and N3
36 (57.1)
29 (46.8)


Cell Type


Adenocarcinoma
34 (54)  
26 (41.9)
0.21‡


Others
29 (46)  
36 (58.1)





†T test


‡Fisher's exact test


§Chi-square test






Example 1
Genes for Identification of Tumor Tissue
1. Statistical Analysis
Microarray raw data was processed as described in the Data Pretreatment of the previous section. The logarithmic intensity was further normalized using the PROC RANK of the statistical software SAS (version 9.1; SAS Institute Inc., Cary, N.C., USA).
Microarray data obtained from tumor tissue and its adjacent normal tissue in each individual was then treated as paired data for statistical analysis. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to select those genes with significant differences in expression level between the paired tissue as described in the AvadisTM user manual (AvadisTM user manual. (2004) USA, Strand Genomic Pvt Ltd.; and Rosner R. (2000) Fundamentals of biostatistics (ed 5). California, USA, Duxbury). A false discovery rate (FDR) was applied to calculate the corrected p values, in order to control the false positive rate at a nominal level of 0.05 (Benjamini and Hochberg, (1995) J. the Royal Statistical Society. Series B 57:289-300). Only those genes exhibiting a 2-fold difference in expression level were then included for the subsequent discriminant or cluster analysis.
On the basis of the genes selected above, both a supervised Fisher's discriminant analysis (Johnson and Wichern, (1998) Applied multivariate statistical analysis (ed 4). New Jersey, USA, Prentice-Hall Inc.) and an unsupervised hierarchical clustering method (Draghici S. Data analysis tools for DNA microarrays. (2003) London, UK CRC Press) were applied to construct gene expression profiles for the identification of tumor tissue. A discriminant analysis is commonly known to one of ordinary skill in the statistical art to determine which variables discriminate between two or more naturally occurring groups. Although the performance of Fisher's discriminant analysis has been shown to be excellent in terms of distinction between tumor tissue and normal one when the number of genes is small (Dudoit et al., J. American Statistical Association (2002) 97:77-87), which is the case for this study, it cannot display the relations among these genes in an intuitive manner. For this purpose, a two-dimensional hierarchical clustering analysis using an average linkage method with a Pearson correlation coefficient proximity matrix (Draghici S. Data analysis tools for DNA microarrays. (2003) London, UK CRC Press) was further conducted.
2. Results
As shown in Table 4, seventeen genes were selected for identification of tumor or normal tissue (Table 4). All of them had higher expression level with at least a two-fold change either in tumor tissue (7 genes) or in normal tissue (10 genes).
In the training dataset, the results of the discriminant analysis showed that the validity indexes were as follows: sensitivity=0.90, specificity=0.96, positive prediction value (PPV)=0.96, and negative prediction value (NPV)=0.91. The derived model was further applied to the testing dataset to independently evaluate its validity. Analysis results revealed that all indexes remained high (sensitivity=0.86, specificity=0.89, PPV=0.89, and NPV=0.86). This indicates that this 17-gene set could clearly discriminate tumor tissues from normal ones very well.
On the other hand, when an unsupervised hierarchical clustering analysis using these selected genes was conducted in the training dataset (FIG. 4A), the color-gram also clearly indicated that most of the tissues with the same expression profile could be clustered together. There remained only a small number of specimens inconsistently alighted with the surrounding elements. A similar pattern was found in the testing dataset.








TABLE 4







Gene List for Classification Study:



Identification of tumor tissue












Gene
UniGene













SEQ ID NO.
Symbol
ID
Fold Change†
P Value‡















1
THBS2
Hs.371147
−2.5
<0.001



 


2
FAP
Hs.516493
−2.2
<0.001


 


3
IGFBP3
Hs.450230
−2.2
<0.001


 


4
PLAU
Hs.77274
−2.1
<0.001


 


5
MCM4
Hs.460184
−2.1
<0.001


 


6
MMP1
Hs.83169
−2.0
<0.001


 


7
CDC20
Hs.524947
−2.0
<0.001


 


8
ADARB1
Hs.474018
2.0
<0.001


 


9
THBD
Hs.2030
2.1
<0.001


 


10
NR4A1
Hs.524430
2.1
<0.001


 


11
TGFBR2
Hs.82028
2.1
<0.001


 


12
SPARCL1
Hs.62886
2.2
<0.001


 


13
CAV1
Hs.74034
2.4
<0.001


 


14
ADRB2
Hs.591251
2.5
<0.001


 


15
KIAA1102
Hs.335163
2.5
<0.001


 


16
TGFBR3
Hs.482390
2.6
<0.001


 


17
GPM6A
Hs.75819
2.6
<0.001





†Negative values were up regulation in cancer tissue and positive values were up regulation in normal tissue.


‡P values were protected by FDR.






Several genes of the 17-gene set have been previously reported to be positively or negatively correlated with the occurrence of neoplasm, such as CAV1 (Bender et al., Cancer Res. (2000) 60:5870-5878; Ho et al., Am. J. Pathol. (2002) 161:1647-1656; Sagara et al., Br. J. Cancer (2004) 91:959-965; and Wiechen et al., Am. J. Pathol. (2001) 158:833-839), MMP1 (Gouyer et al., Cancer (2005) 103:1676-1684), and IGFBP3 (Spitz et al., Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. (2002) 11:1413-1418; and Renehan et al., Lancet (2004) 363:1346-1353).
Example 2
Genes for Subclassification of Lung Carcinomas
We further examined whether gene expression profile can be applied for distinguish different subtypes of lung carcinomas, especially two major types, adenocarcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas.
1. Statistical Analysis
Microarray raw data were processed as described in Data Pretreatment of the previous section. The logarithmic intensity was further normalized using the PROC RANK of the statistical software SAS (version 9.1; SAS Institute Inc., Cary, N.C., USA).
Only the intensity data obtained from tumor tissue specimens was randomly grouped into training dataset and testing dataset before the statistical analysis (Table 3 (B)). Wilcoxon rank-sum test, a non-parametric method for independent samples was processed, while 10,000 times of permutation was employed for gene selection (Rosner R. Fundamentals of biostatistics (ed 5). (2000) California, USA, Duxbury; Draghici S. Data analysis tools for DNA microarrays. (2003) London, UK, CRC Press; Dudoit et al., Stat. Sin. (2000) 12:111-139; and Troyanskaya et al., Bioinformatics (2002) 18:1454-1461). Two further criteria were set for gene selection, including a corrected p value that must be less than 0.05 and a difference in expression level higher than 1.7 fold.
2. Results
As shown in Table 5, eleven genes were selected for classification of lung cancer cell types. Among these eleven genes, five genes, which were KIAA1102 (SEQ ID NO:15), MUC1 (SEQ ID NO:18), ErbB3 (SEQ ID NO:19), PTPRU (SEQ ID NO:20), and SCP2 (SEQ ID NO:21), having negative value of fold change, were expressed with higher level in adenocarcinoma (AC). The other six genes, which were SLC43A3 (SEQ ID NO:22), MXD1 (SEQ ID NO:23), S100A8 (SEQ ID NO:24), ODC1 (SEQ ID NO:25), PIK3CA (SEQ ID NO:26), and CMKOR1 (SEQ ID NO:27), having positive value, in squamous carcinoma (SCC). This group of selected genes had at least a 1.7-fold change and p values less than 0.01.
In the training dataset, the discriminant analysis results showed that sensitivity and specificity was 0.81 and 0.82, respectively. PPV and NPV was 0.76 and 0.86, respectively. Similar results, regarding sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV, were given in the testing dataset. This suggests that this 11-gene set could be applied for classification of AC and SCC type.








TABLE 5







Gene List for Classification Study:



Subtyping











Fold













SEQ ID NO.
Gene Symbol
UniGene ID
Change†
P Value‡















18
MUC1
Hs.89603
−2.1
.006



 


19
ErbB3
Hs.593522
−2.0
.006


 


15
KIAA1102
Hs.335163
−1.8
.008


 


20
PTPRU
Hs.19718
−1.8
.006


 


21
SCP2
Hs.476365
−1.7
.008


 


22
SLC43A3
Hs.99962
1.7
.006


 


23
MXD1
Hs.468908
1.7
.006


 


24
S100A8
Hs.416073
1.8
.008


 


25
ODC1
Hs.467701
1.8
.008


 


26
PIK3CA
Hs.478376
1.8
.006


 


27
CMKOR1
Hs.471751
2.0
.006





†Negative values were up regulation in adenocarcinoma (AC) and positive values were up regulation in squamous carcinoma (SCC).


‡P values were protected by FDR.






Specifically, one gene (noted as KIAA1102 (SEQ ID NO:15)) of the 11 genes selected for the subtyping of lung cancer was overlapped with those for the identification of tumor tissue. Some genes were reported to be excessively expressed in adenocarcinoma (AC), including MUC1 (SEQ ID NO:18) (surfactant-related and small airway-associated; Petty et al., Clin. Cancer Res. (2004) 10:3237-3248) and ErbB3 (a member of the EGFR family of tyrosine kinase; Poller et al., J. Pathol. 168:275-80, 1992; Sithanandam et al., Oncogene (2005) 24:1847-1859). The accuracy of the 11-gene set for the subtyping of lung cancer was not as good as that for the discrimination between normal and tumor tissues, which is probably not surprising given the task of subtyping being more difficult.
Example 3
Gene Expression Signatures to Predict Metastasis and Survival of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
1. Statistical Analysis
Microarray raw data was processed as described in Data Pretreatment of the previous section. Only the intensity data obtained from tumor tissue specimens were randomly grouped into training dataset and testing dataset before the statistical analysis.
For the prediction of prognosis, the intensity of gene expression was coded as an ordinal level from 1 to 4, depending on the percentile of its intensity distributed in the range from the first (0-25%) the second (25%-50%), the third (50%-75%), or the fourth (75%-100%) range, respectively.
2. Selection of Survival-Associated Genes
Univariate Cox's proportional hazards regression analysis (Cox D R. Regression Models and Life-Tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (1972) 34:187-220) of individual gene was applied to selection of overall survival-associated genes. A Cox's regression coefficient of individual gene could be estimated and a group of genes with significant coefficient (p value<0.05) were selected. A risk score was given to each individual patient. This risk score was the summation of multiplication of the regression coefficient of selected gene with its corresponding expression intensity.
The median of all estimated risk scores obtained from the patients grouped in the training dataset was chosen as the cut-off value for classifying patients into high- versus low-risk group. The same cut-off value was directly applied to classification of patients grouped in the testing dataset for the same process.
Once the grouping of high- versus low-risk was determined, Kaplan-Meier method was used to generate for both overall and relapse-free survival curves. Differences in survival between the two groups were analyzed using log-rank test. The ability of independent prognostic factors was evaluated by multivariate Cox's proportional hazards regression analysis. The 0.05 significant level and two tailed p value was performed in this study.
3. Results
The experimental data obtained from 125 tumor tissue specimen, which had information on survival status, were applied to statistical analysis (Table 3(C)). The filtration of genes with a CV less than 3% resulted in reduction of gene number to 485 genes for further selection. Sixteen genes correlated with survival were selected on the basis of Cox proportional hazard regression analysis, in which 4 were protection genes (hazard ratio<1) and 12 risk genes (hazard ratio>1) (Table 6). The p values of all genes were less than 0.05.








TABLE 6







Genes Selected among 672 Genes for the



Prediction of Survival and Metastasis










Correlation Between












SEQ

Hazard
Microarray and













ID
Gene
UniGene
Ratio
Real-Time RT-PCR












NO.
Symbol
ID
(p value)†
(p value)‡















28
ANXA5
Hs.480653
0.34
0.06






(<0.01)
(0.573)


 


29
LCK*
Hs.470627
0.43
0.55





(0.02)
(<0.001)


 


30
FRAP1
Hs.338207
0.46
−0.12





(0.04)
(0.239)


 


31
STAT1*
Hs.565365
0.56
0.40





(0.02)
(<0.001)


 


32
NF1
Hs.567266
1.60
−0.15





(0.04)
(0.123)


 


33
HGF
Hs.396530
1.66
0.02





(0.03)
(0.818)


 


34
HMMR
Hs.72550
1.67
−0.03





(0.04)
(0.787)


 


35
IRF4
Hs.401013
1.68
0.06





(0.03)
(0.57)


 


36
ZNF264
Hs.590962
1.73
0.01





(0.01)
(0.949)


 


19
ErbB3*
Hs.593522
1.73
0.59





(0.03)
(<0.001)


 


37
STAT2
Hs.530595
1.80
0.15





(0.03)
(0.122)


 


38
CPEB4
Hs.127126
1.80
0.16





(0.02)
(0.119)


 


39
RNF4
Hs.66394
1.91
0.13





(0.02)
(0.184)


 


40
DUSP6*
Hs.298654
2.12
0.46





(0.01)
(<0.001)


 


41
MMD*
Hs.463483
2.50
0.27





(0.04)
(0.006)


 


42
DLG2
Hs.503453
3.75
−0.09





(<0.01)
(0.367)





†Estimated by univariate Cox's proportional hazards regression analysis on the basis of microarray experiments.


‡Spearman rank correlation (n = 101).


*Genes selected in the final set for decision tree classification (see text)






These 16 genes were used to generate a risk score for every patient grouped in the training dataset. The risk score was calculated as follows:




  
    
      Risk
      ⁢
      
        
      
      ⁢
      Score
    
    =
    
      
        
          -
          1.09
        
        ×
        ANXA
        ⁢
        
          
        
        ⁢
        5
      
      -
      
        0.84
        ×
        LCK
      
      -
      
        0.77
        ×
        FRAP
        ⁢
        
          
        
        ⁢
        1
      
      -
      
        0.58
        ×
        STAT
        ⁢
        
          
        
        ⁢
        1
      
      +
      
        0.47
        ×
        NF
        ⁢
        
          
        
        ⁢
        1
      
      +
      
        0.51
        ×
        HGF
      
      +
      
        0.52
        ×
        HMMR
      
      +
      
        0.52
        ×
        IRF
        ⁢
        
          
        
        ⁢
        4
      
      +
      
        0.55
        ×
        ZNF
        ⁢
        
          
        
        ⁢
        264
      
      +
      
        0.55
        ×
        ErB
        ⁢
        
          
        
        ⁢
        3
      
      +
      
        0.59
        ×
        STAT
        ⁢
        
          
        
        ⁢
        2
      
      +
      
        0.59
        ×
        CPEB
        ⁢
        
          
        
        ⁢
        4
      
      +
      
        0.65
        ×
        RNF
        ⁢
        
          
        
        ⁢
        4
      
      +
      
        0.75
        ×
        DUSP
        ⁢
        
          
        
        ⁢
        6
      
      +
      
        0.92
        ×
        MMD
      
      +
      
        1.32
        ×
        DLG
      
    
  
  ⁢
  
    
  




Based on the median of risk score (cut-off), patients were categorized as high- or low-risk and their corresponding Kaplan-Meier estimates of overall survival and relapse-free survival were plotted in FIG. 1A, respectively. Patients with high-risk signatures had both a significantly poorer overall and relapse-free survival than those with low-risk signatures (p values<0.001, log rank test). As shown in the color-gram of the expression profiles for these selected genes (FIG. 4C), patients with higher risk scores expressed more risk genes (green), whereas those with lower risk scores expressed more protection genes (brown).
4. Transfer of Statistical Modeling of Training Dataset to Testing Dataset
Similar pattern in both the overall and relapse-free survival was obtained in comparing high- versus low-risk patients, when the same median risk score was applied as the cut-off point to the testing dataset, (FIG. 1B). Furthermore, patients with higher risk scores also expressed more risk genes (green) whereas those with lower risk scores expressed more protection genes (brown) (FIG. 4C).
Example 4
Genes for Prognosis Prediction Using Real-Time Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction
Real-time Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (real-time RT-PCR) was applied to confirm the prognosis determination described in Example 3. Alternatively, a prediction model was also established using the assay data from real-time RT-PCR of 101 patients, which is in the sub-sample of 125 patients as mentioned in the Example 3.
1. Material and Methods
Sixteen genes selected for outcome prediction and one endogenous control gene, TATA-box binding protein (TBP), were analyzed. Gene-specific TaqMan® probes and primer sets were commercial purchased from Applied Biosystems (Hs00154054_ml for ANXA5, Hs00265843_ml for DLG2, Hs00185667_ml for ZNF264, Hs00169257_ml for DUSP6, Hs00286741_ml for CPEB4, Hs0078427_ml for LCK, Hs00234829_ml for STAT1, Hs00231302_ml for RNF4, Hs00180031_ml for IRF4, Hs0013132_ml for STAT2, Hs00300159_ml for HGF, Hs00176538_ml for ERBB3, Hs00169714_ml for NF1, Hs00234508_ml for FRAP1, Hs00202450_ml for MMD, Hs00234864_ml for HMMR, and Hs00427620_ml for TBP). Real-time RT-PCR assays were carried out using Taqman One-Step RT-PCR Master Mix Reagent (Applied Biosystems, Branchburg, N.J.) on an ABI PRISM 7900HT Sequence Detection System, according to the manufacturer's instructions. Gene expression level was calculated as relative amount on the base of expression endogenous control gene, TBP, using Sequence Detector Software.
2. Statistical Analysis and Results
2.1. Correlation of Individual Gene Between Microarray and Real-Time RT-PCR Studies
The consistency of two analysis approaches, microarray/Cox regression model and real-time RT-PCR, of these selected 16 genes (in Example 3) was further indexed by Spearman's rank correlation (Rosner R. Fundamentals of biostatistics (2000) (ed 5). California, USA, Duxbury). It is a method used for calculating correlation between variables, when the data does not follow the normal distribution. This is therefore a non-parametric test. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient, like all other correlation coefficient, will take a value between −1 and +1. A positive correlation is one in which the ranks of both variables increase together. A negative correlation is one in which the ranks of one variable increase as the ranks of the other variable decrease.
The expression level of five genes, including LCK (SEQ ID NO:29), STAT1 (SEQ ID NO:31), ErbB3 (SEQ ID NO:19), DUSP6 (SEQ ID NO:40), and MMD (SEQ ID NO:41), was significantly correlated between these two assays according to two criteria, such as Spearman's coefficient (positive and with greater value among 16 other genes) and p value<0.05 (Table 6). These 5 genes were dual specificity phosphatase 6 (DUSP6), monocyte to macrophage differentiation-associated (MMD), signal transducer and activator of transcription 1, 91 kD (STAT1), v-erb-b2 avian erythroblastic leukemia viral oncogene homolog 3 (ErbB3), and lymphocyte-specific protein tyrosine kinase (LCK). There are still 11 genes not showing gut correlation. This variation might very possible be resulted from two reasons. Firstly, from the experimental procedure point of view, an additional amplification procedure of total RNA was performed before hybridization for microarray approach, while the total RNA was directly applied for real-time RT-PCR. Another possible reason is that our ordinal coding for microarray assay might reduce the variance of gene expression and hence led to a decreased magnitude in correlation.
2.2. Prediction of Survival and Metastasis By Real-Time RT-PCR
Expression levels of these 5 significant genes, measured by real-time RT-PCR assay, were applied to derive the Decision Tree classification model (FIG. 3) for prediction of the patient outcome being high-low risk. Classification trees have been used for classification of specimens using microarray gene expression profiles (Zhang et al., Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA (2001) and Dudoit et al., J. Am. Stat. Assoc. (2002) 97:77-87). More information regarding the construction of classification tree is obtained from the reference written by Simon et al. (Statistic for Biology and Health-Design and Analysis of DNA Microarray Investigations (2003) Springer-Verlag, Chapter 8: 104-106):
Construction of a binary tree-structured classifier begins with a split of the gene expression profiles into two subsets (or nodes) based on the expression level of one of the genes. One subset consists of those samples with expression level of the selected gene above a selected threshold value, and the other subset consists of the remaining samples. After finding the gene and threshold value that optimally splits the set of samples of the training set into two subsets, the process in then repeated independently for each of the two resultant subsets. In other words, for each of the subsets, the gene and threshold value that best separates the samples in that subset are determined. This process of binary splitting of subsets results in a tree structure. Each node of the tree represents a set of samples. Each node is split based on a gene and a threshold expression level. Terminal nodes in the tree are assigned to a class. The rule for assigning a class to each terminal node is the basis for the classification of new samples.
Specifically, the decision tree model based on these 5 genes predicted patients well (overall accuracy=96%). On the basis of these 5 genes, patients with high-risk signatures remained to have both a significantly poorer overall (p value<0.001 for log rank test) and relapse-free survival (p value=0.002 for log rank test) than those with low-risk signatures (FIG. 1C).







TABLE 7







Summary of Clinicopathologic Features for Prediction of Survival


and Metastasis Using Real-time RT-PCR assay data of five genes











High
Low



Characteristic
No. of Patients (%)
No. of Patients (%)
P value










(A) Patients predicted by decision tree classification (n = 101)










Age (mean ± SD)
  65 ± 11.6
66.3 ± 10.7
0.538†


Gender


Male
45 (76)
35 (83)
0.461‡


Female
14 (24)
 7 (17)


Stage


I and II
29 (49)
30 (71)
0.04‡


III
30 (51)
12 (29)


Cell Type


Adenocarcinoma
  36 (61.0)
15 (36)
0.016‡


Others
  23 (39.0)
27 (64)







(B) Verification by the independent cohort (n = 60)










Age (mean ± SD)
69.4 ± 9.2
65.3 ± 10.3
0.108†


Gender


Male
30 (88)
20 (77)
0.305‡


Female
 4 (12)
 6 (23)


Stage


I and II
20 (59)
22 (85)
0.046‡


III
14 (41)
 4 (15)


Cell Type


Adenocarcinoma
11 (32)
13 (50)
0.193‡


Others
23 (68)
13 (50)





†T test


‡Fisher's exact test






This 5-gene based dichotomization of high- versus low-risk was only associated with clinicopathological stage and histology (cell type), but not associated with age and gender (Table 7 (A)). To further assess whether this high-low risk dichotomy could predict clinical prognosis independently from the effect of age, gender, cell type, or clinicopathological stage, a multivariate Cox's proportional hazards regression analysis incorporating these variables as covariates was undertaken. As far as overall survival concerned, the hazard ratio for age (1.06, 95% CI=1.03 to 1.09, p value<0.001), for clinicopathological stage (2.13, 95% CI=1.16 to 3.93, p value=0.015), and for the high-low risk dichotomy (2.82, 95% CI=1.38 to 5.78, p value=0.005) remained significant. The hazard ratio for relapse-free survival remained significant for the clinicopathological stage (2.28, 95% CI=1.33 to 3.91, p value=0.003) and high-low risk dichotomy (1.92, 95% CI=1.06 to 3.46, p value=0.03).
2.3 Prognosis Prediction of Early-Staged Lung Cancer Patients
The further evaluation of the 5-gene-based high-low dichotomy for prognosis prediction of lung cancer patients in early stage was performed by conduction of Kaplan-Meier analysis in a sub-sample of patients with stage I or stage II (n=59). The results showed that both overall (p value<0.001, log rank test) and relapse-free survival (p value=0.005, log rank test) (FIG. 1D) have a good separation of patients with high- or low-risk. The percentage of early-staged patients that were assigned as high-risk by the 5-gene-based real-time RT-PCR was 47% (15 out of 32) for stage I patients and 52% (14 out of 27) for stage II patients, respectively.
2.4. Verification of the 5 Genes-Based Predictive Model in Independent Cohort
The verification of 5-gene predictive model was performed by analysis of an independent cohort (n=60). Patients with high-risk signatures remained to have a significantly poorer overall survival than those with low-risk signatures (p values=0.006 for log rank test) (FIG. 2A). This 5-gene based dichotomization of predicted high- versus low-risk was not associated with age, gender, histology (cell type), or clinicopathological stage (Table 7(B)).
A multivariate Cox's proportional hazards regression analysis incorporating these variables as covariates was undertaken, in order to further assess whether this predicted high-low risk dichotomy could predict clinical prognosis independently from the effect of age, gender, cell type, or clinicopathological stage. The hazard ratios for the predicted high-low risk dichotomy (3.36, 95% CI=1.35 to 8.35, p value=0.009) remained significant.
2.5 Prognosis Prediction of Early-Staged Lung Cancer Patients of Independent Cohort
Additionally, a Kaplan-Meier analysis was conducted in a subsample of patients with stage I or stage II (n=42). The result showed that the patients were predicted high-risk with poorer overall survival (p values=0.044 for log rank test) (FIG. 2B). The percentage of early-stages patients that were assigned as predicted high-risk by the 5-gene-based real-time RT-PCR was 41% (12 out of 29) for stage I and 62% (8 out of 13) stage II patients, respectively.
2.6 Prognosis Prediction With Smaller Gene Number
Gene number for performing the prognosis prediction could be reduced without loss of much sensitivity and specificity. Table 8 shows five additional gene sets, each with three genes of five selected genes, could be applied to prediction with high accuracy, ranging from 0.91-0.93. The application of all smaller gene set shows with the sensitivity greater than 0.95 and with the specificity ranging from 0.86 to 0.95.







TABLE 8







Prognosis Prediction With Smaller Gene Number












Gene
Sensi-
Speci-
Accu-


No.
set
tivity
ficity
racy


















1
Stat1


Predict







ErbB3


H
L



Lck
TRUE
H
54
3
0.95

0.95





L
2
42

0.95


2
Stat1


Predict



ErbB3


H
L



Mmd
TRUE
H
54
3
0.95

0.91





L
6
38

0.86


3
Stat1


Predict



ErbB3


H
L



Dusp6
TRUE
H
55
2
0.96

0.93





L
5
39

0.89


4
Lck


Predict



ErbB3


H
L



Mmd
TRUE
H
54
3
0.95

0.94





L
3
41

0.93


5
Lck


Predict



ErbB3


H
L



Dusp6
TRUE
H
54
3
0.95

0.94





L
3
41

0.93









While the invention has been described by way of examples and in term of the preferred embodiments, it is to be understood that the invention is not limited to the disclosed embodiments. On the contrary, it is intended to cover various modifications as would be apparent to those skilled in the art. Therefore, the scope of the appended claims should be accorded the broadest interpretation so as to encompass all such modifications.

## Claims

1. A method for predicting prognosis of survival in a human patient having non-small cell lung cancer, comprising the steps of:
(a) obtaining a lung cancer tissue sample from the patient;
(b) determining the expression intensity of each gene in a 16-gene set in the lung cancer tissue sample, wherein said 16-gene set comprises 16 genes consisting of annexin A5 (ANXA5; SEQ ID NO: 28), lymphocyte-specific protein tyrosine kinase (LCK; SEQ ID NO: 29), mechanistic target of rapamycin (FRAP1; SEQ ID NO: 30), signal transducer and activator of transcription 1 (STAT1; SEQ ID NO: 31), neurofibromin 1 (NF1; SEQ ID NO: 32), hepatocyte growth factor (HGF; SEQ ID NO: 33), hyaluronan-mediated motility receptor (HMMR; SEQ ID NO: 34), interferon regulatory factor 4 (IRF4; SEQ ID NO: 35), zinc finger protein 264 (ZNF264; SEQ ID NO: 36), v-erb-b2 avian erythroblastic leukemia viral oncogene homolog 3 (ErbB3; SEQ ID NO: 19), signal transducer and activator of transcription 2 (STAT2; SEQ ID NO: 37), cytoplasmic polyadenylation element binding protein 4 (CPEB4; SEQ ID NO: 38), ring finger protein 4 (RNF4; SEQ ID NO: 39), dual specificity phosphatase 6 (DUSP6; SEQ ID NO: 40), monocyte to macrophage differentiation-associated (MMD; SEQ ID NO:41), and discs, large (Drosophila) homolog 2 (DLG2; SEQ ID NO: 42);
(c) generating a risk score for said patient from the expression intensities of said 16 genes in the 16-gene set in the lung cancer tissue sample; and
(d) predicting the prognosis of survival in the patient by comparing the risk score of the patient with a median of risk scores of a group of non-small cell lung cancer human patients, wherein the median of risk scores is generated from the expression intensities of said 16 genes in the lung cancer tissue samples of the group of non-small cell lung cancer human patients, the patient is predicted to have a poor chance of survival when the risk score of the patient is higher than the median of risk scores and the patient is predicted to have a good chance of survival when the risk score of the patient is lower than the median of risk scores.

2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the risk score of the patient is calculated using a univariate Cox's proportional hazards regression analysis based on a summation of the results generated by multiplying the expression intensity of each gene in the 16-gene set in the lung cancer tissue sample from the patient with the corresponding regression coefficient of each gene in the 16-gene set.

3. The method according to claim 2, wherein said risk score of the patient is calculated according to an equation:




  
    
      
        said
        ⁢
        
          
            
          
          ⁢
          
            
          
        
        ⁢
        risk
        ⁢
        
          
        
        ⁢
        score
      
      =
      
        
          
            -
            1.09
          
          ×
          
            [
            
              ANXA
              ⁢
              
                
              
              ⁢
              5
            
            ]
          
        
        -
        
          0.84
          ×
          
            [
            LCK
            ]
          
        
        -
        
          0.77
          ×
          
            [
            
              FRAP
              ⁢
              
                
              
              ⁢
              1
            
            ]
          
        
        -
        
          0.58
          ×
          
            [
            
              STAT
              ⁢
              
                
              
              ⁢
              1
            
            ]
          
        
        +
        
          0.47
          ×
          
            [
            
              NF
              ⁢
              
                
              
              ⁢
              1
            
            ]
          
        
        +
        
          0.51
          ×
          
            [
            HGF
            ]
          
        
        +
        
          0.52
          ×
          
            [
            HMMR
            ]
          
        
        +
        
          0.52
          ×
          
            [
            
              IRF
              ⁢
              
                
              
              ⁢
              4
            
            ]
          
        
        +
        
          0.55
          ×
          
            [
            
              ZNF
              ⁢
              
                
              
              ⁢
              264
            
            ]
          
        
        +
        
          0.55
          ×
          
            [
            
              ErbB
              ⁢
              
                
              
              ⁢
              3
            
            ]
          
        
        +
        
          0.59
          ×
          
            [
            
              STAT
              ⁢
              
                
              
              ⁢
              2
            
            ]
          
        
        +
        
          0.59
          ×
          
            [
            
              CPEB
              ⁢
              
                
              
              ⁢
              4
            
            ]
          
        
        +
        
          0.65
          ×
          
            [
            
              RNF
              ⁢
              
                
              
              ⁢
              4
            
            ]
          
        
        +
        
          0.75
          ×
          
            [
            
              DUSP
              ⁢
              
                
              
              ⁢
              6
            
            ]
          
        
        +
        
          0.92
          ×
          
            [
            MMD
            ]
          
        
        +
        
          1.32
          ×
          
            [
            
              DLG
              ⁢
              2
            
            ]
          
        
      
    
    ;
  
  ⁢
  
    
  



wherein [ANXA5], [LCK], [FRAP1], [STAT1], [NF1], [HGF], [HMMR], [IRF4], [ZNF264], [ErbB3], [STAT2], [CPEB4], [RNF4], [DUSP6], [MMD], and [DLG2] in the equation represent the expression intensities of ANXA5, LCK, FRAP1, STAT1, NF1, HGF, HMMR, IRF4, ZNF264, ErbB3, STAT2, CPEB4, RNF4, DUSP6, MMD, and DLG2 in the lung cancer tissue sample from the patient.

4. The method according to claim 1, wherein said 16-gene set in the lung cancer tissue sample from the patient is selected by a univariate Cox's proportional hazards regression analysis.

5. The method according to claim 1, wherein the expression intensity of each gene in the 16-gene set in the lung cancer tissue sample from the patient is determined by a cDNA microarray-based technology.

6. The method according to claim 1, wherein the expression intensity of each gene in the 16-gene set in the lung cancer tissue sample from the patient is determined by a real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) method.

7. A method for predicting prognosis of survival in a human patient having non-small cell lung cancer, comprising the steps of:
(a) obtaining a lung cancer tissue sample from the patient;
(b) measuring the expression intensity of each gene in a 5-gene set in the lung cancer tissue sample, wherein the 5-gene set comprises 5 genes consisting of LCK (SEQ ID NO: 29), STAT1 (SEQ ID NO: 31), ErbB3 (SEQ ID NO: 19), DUSP6 (SEQ ID NO: 40), and MMD (SEQ ID NO: 41); and
(c) predicting the prognosis of survival in the patient having the non-small cell lung cancer by applying the expression intensity of each gene in the 5-gene set in the lung cancer tissue sample from step (b) to a 5 gene-decision tree model constructed based on expression intensities of LCK, STAT1, ErbB3, DUSP6, and MMD in the lung cancer tissue samples from a group of non-small cell lung cancer human patients and determining whether the patient has a poor chance of survival or a good chance of survival.

8. The method according to claim 7, wherein the measuring step is performed by a real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) method and the expression intensity of each gene in the 5-gene set in the lung cancer tissue sample from the patient is calculated as a relative amount of expression intensity of an endogenous control gene.

9. The method according to claim 8, wherein the 5-gene decision tree model is a decision tree model according to FIG. 4.

10. The method of claim 8, wherein the endogenous control gene is a TATA box binding protein-encoding gene.

11. The method according to claim 7, wherein the expression intensity of each gene in the 5-gene set in the lung cancer tissue sample from the patient is measured by a cDNA microarray-based technology.

12. The method according to claim 7, wherein the human patient is at an early stage of the non-small cell lung cancer.

13. The method according to claim 7, wherein the 5-gene decision model is a decision tree model described in FIG. 4, and the human patient is at an early stage of the non-small cell lung cancer.

14. A method for predicting prognosis of survival in a human patient having non-small cell lung cancer, comprising the steps of:
(a) obtaining a lung cancer tissue sample from the patient;
(b) measuring the expression intensity of each gene in a 5-gene set in the lung cancer tissue sample, wherein the 5-gene set comprises 5 gene consisting of LCK (SEQ ID NO: 29), STAT1 (SEQ ID NO: 31), ErbB3 (SEQ ID NO: 19), DUSP6 (SEQ ID NO: 40), and MMD (SEQ ID NO: 41) by performing a real-time RT-PCR method and calculating the expression intensity of each gene in the 5-gene set in the lung cancer tissue sample from the patient as a relative amount of expression intensity of an endogenous control gene; and
(c) predicting the prognosis of survival in the patient having the non-small cell lung cancer by applying the expression intensity of each gene in the 5-gene set in the lung cancer tissue sample from step (b) to a 5 gene-decision tree model constructed based on expression intensities of LCK, STAT1, ErbB3, DUSP6, and MMD in the lung cancer tissue samples from a group of non-small cell lung cancer patients and determining whether the patient has a poor chance of survival or a good chance of survival.

15. The method according to claim 14, wherein the 5-gene decision tree model is a decision tree model according to FIG. 4.

16. The method according to claim 14, wherein the human patient is at an early stage of the non-small cell lung cancer.