Zheng Ping, Gene P Siegal, Jonas S Almeida, Stuart J Schnitt, Dejun Shen J Pathol Inform 2014, 5:3 (31 January 2014) DOI:10.4103/2153-3539.126147 PMID:24672738Background: Genetics and genomics have radically altered our understanding of breast cancer progression. However, the genomic basis of various histopathologic features of breast cancer is not yet well-defined. Materials and Methods: The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) is an international database containing a large collection of human cancer genome sequencing data. cBioPortal is a web tool developed for mining these sequencing data. We performed mining of TCGA sequencing data in an attempt to characterize the genomic features correlated with breast cancer histopathology. We first assessed the quality of the TCGA data using a group of genes with known alterations in various cancers. Both genome-wide gene mutation and copy number changes as well as a group of genes with a high frequency of genetic changes were then correlated with various histopathologic features of invasive breast cancer. Results: Validation of TCGA data using a group of genes with known alterations in breast cancer suggests that the TCGA has accurately documented the genomic abnormalities of multiple malignancies. Further analysis of TCGA breast cancer sequencing data shows that accumulation of specific genomic defects is associated with higher tumor grade, larger tumor size and receptor negativity. Distinct groups of genomic changes were found to be associated with the different grades of invasive ductal carcinoma. The mutator role of the TP53 gene was validated by genomic sequencing data of invasive breast cancer and TP53 mutation was found to play a critical role in defining high tumor grade. Conclusions: Data mining of the TCGA genome sequencing data is an innovative and reliable method to help characterize the genomic abnormalities associated with histopathologic features of invasive breast cancer. |
Jason M Baron, Anand S Dighe, Ramy Arnaout, Ulysses J Balis, W Stephen Black-Schaffer, Alexis B Carter, Walter H Henricks, John M Higgins, Brian R Jackson, JiYeon Kim, Veronica E Klepeis, Long P Le, David N Louis, Diana Mandelker, Craig H Mermel, James S Michaelson, Rakesh Nagarajan, Mihae E Platt, Andrew M Quinn, Luigi Rao, Brian H Shirts, John R Gilbertson J Pathol Inform 2014, 5:2 (31 January 2014) DOI:10.4103/2153-3539.126145 PMID:24672737Background: Pathologists and informaticians are becoming increasingly interested in electronic clinical decision support for pathology, laboratory medicine and clinical diagnosis. Improved decision support may optimize laboratory test selection, improve test result interpretation and permit the extraction of enhanced diagnostic information from existing laboratory data. Nonetheless, the field of pathology decision support is still developing. To facilitate the exchange of ideas and preliminary studies, we convened a symposium entitled: Pathology data integration and clinical decision support. Methods: The symposium was held at the Massachusetts General Hospital, on May 10, 2013. Participants were selected to represent diverse backgrounds and interests and were from nine different institutions in eight different states. Results: The day included 16 plenary talks and three panel discussions, together covering four broad areas. Summaries of each presentation are included in this manuscript. Conclusions: A number of recurrent themes emerged from the symposium. Among the most pervasive was the dichotomy between diagnostic data and diagnostic information, including the opportunities that laboratories may have to use electronic systems and algorithms to convert the data they generate into more useful information. Differences between human talents and computer abilities were described; well-designed symbioses between humans and computers may ultimately optimize diagnosis. Another key theme related to the unique needs and challenges in providing decision support for genomics and other emerging diagnostic modalities. Finally, many talks relayed how the barriers to bringing decision support toward reality are primarily personnel, political, infrastructural and administrative challenges rather than technological limitations. |