Mixture modeling of progression pathways of heterogeneous breast tumors

Journal of Theoretical Biology

Volumn 249, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 254-261

  Lin, Shili ^a  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

EM algorithm; Finite mixture modeling; Heterogeneity; Model selection; Tumor progression pathway

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; CANCER; HETEROGENEITY; MODELING; TUMOR;

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; BREAST TUMOR; CANCER GRADING; CARCINOMA IN SITU; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD METHOD; MODEL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TUMOR GROWTH;

ALGORITHMS; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA, DUCTAL, BREAST; CARCINOMA, INTRADUCTAL, NONINFILTRATING; DISEASE PROGRESSION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MODELS, STATISTICAL;

EID: 35448976498     PISSN: 00225193     EISSN: 10958541     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2007.08.010     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Buerger H., Otterbach F., Simon R., Poremba C., Diallo R., Decker T., Riethdorf L., Brinkschmidt C., Dockhorn-Dworniczak B., and Boecker W. Comparative genomic hybridization of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast evidence of multiple genetic pathways. J. Pathol. 187 (1999) 396-402
2. Cadman B.A., Ostrowski J.L., and Quinn C.M. Invasive ductal carcinoma accompanied by ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): comparison of DCIS grade with grade of invasive component. The Breast 6 (1997) 132-137
3. Dempster A.P., Laird N.M., and Rubin D.M. Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. J. R. Statist. Soc. B 39 (1977) 1-38
4. Gupta S.K., Douglas-Jones A.G., Fenn N., Morgan J.M., and Mansel R.E. The clinical behavior of breast carcinoma is probably determined at the preinvasive stage (ductal carcinoma in situ). Cancer 80 (1997) 1740-1745
5. Hastie T., Tibshirani R., and Friedman J. The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference and Prediction (2001), Springer, New York
6. Holland R., Peterse J.L., Millis R.R., Eusebi V., Faverly D., van de Vijver M.J., and Zafrani B. Ductal carcinoma in situ: a proposal for a new classification. Semin. Diagn. Pathol. 11 (1994) 167-180
7. Kass R.E., and Raftery A.E. Bayes factors. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 90 (1995) 773-795
8. Leong A.S.-Y., Sormunen R.T., Vinyuvat S., Hamdani R.W., and Suthipintawong C. Biological markers in ductal carcinoma in situ and concurrent infiltrating carcinoma. A comparison of eight contemporary grading systems. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 115 (2001) 709-718
9. McLachlan G., and Peel D. Finite Mixture Models (2000), Wiley, New York
10. Roylance R., Gorman P., Hanby A., and Tomlinson I. Allelic imbalance analysis of chromosome 16q shows that grade 1 and grade III invasive ductal breast cancers follow different genetic pathways. J. Pathol. 196 (2002) 32-36
11. Silverstein M.J., Poller D.N., Waisman J.R., Colburn W.J., Barth A., Gierson E.D., and Lewinsky B. Prognostic classification of breast ductal carcinoma in situ. Lancet 345 (1995) 1154-1157
12. Sontag L., and Axelrod D.E. Evaluation of pathways of progression of heterogeneous breast tumors. J. Theoret. Biol. 232 (2005) 179-189
13. Subramanian B., and Axelrod D.E. Progression of heterogeneous breast tumors. J. Theoret. Biol. 210 (2001) 107-119
14. Wu C.F.J. On the convergence properties of the EM algorithm. Ann. Stat. 11 (1983) 95-103