The ability of physicians to effectively treat and cure cancer is directly dependent on their ability to detect cancers at their early stages. The early detection of cancer has the potential to dramatically reduce mortality. Recently, the use of mass spectrometry to develop profiles of patient serum proteins has been reported as a promising method to achieve this goal. In this paper, we analyzed the ovarian cancer and prostate cancer data sets using support vector machine (SVM) to detect cancer at the early stages based on serum proteomic pattern. The results showed that SVM, in general, performed well on these two data sets, as measured by sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy. Linear kernel worked the best on ovarian cancer data with a sensitivity of 0.99 and an accuracy of 0.97, while polynomial kernel worked the best on prostate cancer data with a sensitivity of 0.79 and an accuracy of 0.82. When redial kernel was applied to either of the two data sets, all the samples were predicted as cancer samples, with a sensitivity of 1 and a specificity of 0. Furthermore, feature selection did not improve SVM performance.
References
1.
WulfkuhleJ. D.Proteomic Applications for the Early Detection of Cancer. Nature Review Cancer3, 267–275 (2003).
QuY.Boosted Decision Tree Analysis of SELDI Mass Spectral Serum Profiles Discriminates Prostate Cancer From Non-cancer Patients. Clin. Chem.48, 1835 (2002).
16.
CazaresL. H.Normal, Benign, Pre-neoplastic and Malignant Prostate Cells Have Distinct Protein Expression Profiles Resolved by SELDI Mass Spectrometry. Clin. Cancer Res.8, 2541 (2002).
17.
AdamB. L.Serum Protein Fingerprinting Coupled with a Pattern Matching Algorithm that Distinguishes Prostate Cancer from Benign Prostate Hyperplasia and Healthy Men. Cancer Res.62, 3609 (2002).
18.
AdamB. L.Proteomic Approaches to Biomarker Discovery in Prostate and Bladder Cancers. Proteomics1, 1264 (2001).
19.
VlahouA.Development of a Novel Proteomic Approach for the Detection of Transitional Cell Carcinoma of the Bladder in Urine. Am. J. Pathol.58, 1491 (2001).
20.
JoachimsT.Transductive Inference for Text Classification Using Support Vector Machine. International Conference On Machine Learning (ICML′99), 200–209 (1999).
21.
LiuY.A Comparative Study on Feature Selection Methods for Drug Discovery. Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences44, 1823–1828 (2004).
22.
GolubT. R.Molecular Classification of Cancer: Class Discovery and Class Prediction by Gene Expression Monitoring. Science286, 531–537 (1999).
23.
TanA. C. and GilnbertD.An Empirical Comparison of Supervised Machine Learning Techniques in Bioinformatics. Proceedings of the First Asia-Pacific Bioinformatics Conference on Bioinformatics, 219–222 (2003).
24.
WittenI. H. and FrankE.Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques with Java Implementations. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2000).
25.
YangY. and PedersonJ. O.A Comparative Study on Feature Selection in Text Categorization. International Conference On Machine Learning (ICML′97), 412–420 (1997).
26.
RogatiM. and YangY.High-performing Feature Selection for Text Classification. CIKM′02, 659–661 (2002).
27.
BrankJ.Interaction of Feature Selection Methods and Linear Classification Models. Workshop On Text Learning (Textml-2002), (2002).
28.
TairaH. and HarunoM.Feature Selection in SVM Text Categorization. AAAI-99, 480–486 (1999).
29.
JoachimsT.Text Categorization with Support Vector Machines: Learning with many Relevant Features. Proceeding Of ECML-98, 137–142 (1998).
30.
BrownM. P. S.Knowledge-based Analysis of Microarray Gene Expression Data by Using Support Vector Machines. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA97, 262–267 (2000).
31.
VapnikV.Statistical Learning Theory (Wiley, New York) (1998).
32.
PavlidisP.Gene Functional Classification from Heterogeneous Data. Proceedings Of RECOMB (2001).
33.
MukherjeeS.Support Vector Machine Classification of Microarray Data, Technical Report 182, AI Memo 1676, CBCL (1999).
34.
FureyT. S.Support Vector Machine Classification and Validation of Cancer Tissue Samples Using Microarray Expression Data. Bioinformatics16, 906–914 (2000).
35.
GuyonI.Gene Selection for Cancer Classification Using Support Vector Machines. Machine Learning46, 389–422 (2002).
36.
DingC. and DubchakI.Multi-class Protein Fold Recognition Using Support Vector Machines and Neural Networks. Bioinformatics17, 349–358 (2001).
37.
CaiY.Support Vector Machines for Predicting Protein Structural Class. BMC Bioinformatics2, 3–7 (2001).
38.
BockJ. R. and GoughD. A.Predicting Protein-protein Interactions from Primary Structure. Bioinformatics17, 455–460 (2000).
39.
HuaS. and SunZ.A Novel Method of Protein Secondary Structure Prediction with High Segment Overlap Measure: Support Vector Machine Approach. Journal Of Molecular Biology308, 397–407 (2001).
