Advertisement

BMC Research Notes

, 11:78 | Cite as

Prediction of opioid dose in cancer pain patients using genetic profiling: not yet an option with support vector machine learning

  • Anne Estrup Olesen
  • Debbie Grønlund
  • Mikkel Gram
  • Frank Skorpen
  • Asbjørn Mohr Drewes
  • Pål Klepstad
Open Access
Research note

Abstract

Objective

Use of opioids for pain management has increased over the past decade; however, inadequate analgesic response is common. Genetic variability may be related to opioid efficacy, but due to the many possible combinations and variables, statistical computations may be difficult. This study investigated whether data processing with support vector machine learning could predict required opioid dose in cancer pain patients, using genetic profiling. Eighteen single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) within the µ and δ opioid receptor genes and the catechol-O-methyltransferase gene were selected for analysis.

Results

Data from 1237 cancer pain patients were included in the analysis. Support vector machine learning did not find any associations between the assessed SNPs and opioid dose in cancer pain patients, and hence, did not provide additional information regarding prediction of required opioid dose using genetic profiling.

Keywords

SNPs Cancer pain Support vector machine Genetics 

Abbreviations

SNPs

several single nucleotide polymorphisms

EPOS

European Pharmacogenetic Opioid Study

SVM

support vector machine

Introduction

Opioids are the basis in treatment of severe pain of both benign and malignant origin. Unfortunately, the clinical use is limited by large inter-individual differences in analgesic responses, and insufficient treatment is often seen. Unacceptable side effects may also appear, potentially reducing quality of life. Thus, identification of biomarkers that can predict the appropriate opioid type and dose for the individual patient is highly warranted. Currently, there is no well-validated objective means of identifying patients likely to experience adequate opioid analgesia, and quantitative sensory testing as well as clinical biomarkers have been applied with low success [1, 2, 3].

Various factors such as gender, age, and genetic variation may influence the analgesic response to opioids. Several single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in different candidate genes have been demonstrated to be associated with altered pain sensitivity and analgesic response [4]. The genetic variations can influence the pharmacokinetics and/or pharmacodynamics of opioids and potentially the effect. A large study, the European Pharmacogenetic Opioid Study (EPOS) included 2294 cancer pain patients and investigated the influence of genetic variability on multiple pain-related outcomes and required opioid dose [5, 6]. No significant associations were found between 112 SNPs in 25 candidate genes and opioid dose, thus the findings did not support the use of genetics profiling to guide opioid treatment. However, statistical analysis including multiple testing of several factors may be a limitation. In contrast, machine learning can include many factors in a single analysis, limiting the risk of erroneous false-positive results [7]. Support vector machine (SVM) is a data driven method, which enables detection of subtle patterns in complex datasets, which are only visible when assessing multiple variables at once. This could be the case for genetic data, where certain combinations of genes could determine the effect.

The objective of the present study was to use SVM analysis of various SNPs to predict the required opioid dose in cancer pain patients.

Main text

Methods

Study design and patient samples

Data from the EPOS study was used for analysis [6]. In brief, the study included patients from 17 centres in 11 European countries. Inclusion criteria were: age > 18 years; diagnosed with a malignant disease; using opioids for moderate to severe pain; treated with regular oral, subcutaneous, transdermal or intravenous opioids (morphine, methadone, fentanyl, hydromorphone, buprenorphine, or oxycodone) for a minimum of 3 days.

Study outcome

The median oral morphine equivalent dose in the full population of 2294 patients was 180 mg/24 h. Therefore, patients were divided into two groups: Group 1 requiring less or equal to 180 mg/24 h; group 2 requiring more than 180 mg/24 h.

Gene selection and genotyping

In the present study, nineteen SNPs; nine SNPs in the OPRM1 gene, one in OPRK1, three in OPRD1 and six in COMT, were selected as relevant. The SNPs were selected according to previous studies, in which genetic associations to opioid analgesic effects were found [4, 8, 9]. The genotype distributions are listed in Table 1. As minor allele frequency had to be higher than 10% to be included in data analysis, the OPRK1 was discarded. SNPs were coded to be binary variables for inclusion in the SVM, hence, they were coded so that carriage of the minor allele equals 1 and homozygous for the major allele equals 0 in the model.
Table 1

Genotype distribution in the study population

Gene

dbSNP

Genotype

Frequency

Percentage

Cumulative

OPRD1

rs533123

CC

74

3.45

3.45

  

CT

695

32.45

35.9

  

TT

1373

64.1

100

  

Total

2142

100

 
 

rs678849

CC

480

22.13

22.13

  

CT

1009

46.52

68.65

  

TT

680

31.35

100

  

Total

2169

100

 
 

rs2236857

AA

676

52.65

52.65

  

AG

509

39.64

92.29

  

GG

99

7.71

100

  

Total

1284

100

 

OPRM1

rs1799971

AA

1363

76.44

76.44

  

AG

393

22.04

98.48

  

GG

27

1.51

99.99

  

Total

1783

100

 
 

rs540825

AA

1234

56.07

56.07

  

AT

821

37.3

93.37

  

TT

146

6.63

100

  

Total

2201

100

 
 

rs562859

AA

950

43.58

43.58

  

AG

962

44.13

87.71

  

GG

268

12.29

100

  

Total

2180

100

 
 

rs548646

CC

918

42.68

42.68

  

CT

965

44.86

87.54

  

TT

268

12.46

100

  

Total

2151

100

 
 

rs1323042

AA

590

27.05

27.05

  

AC

1083

49.66

76.71

  

CC

508

23.29

100

  

Total

2181

100

 
 

rs618207

CC

956

43.51

43.51

  

CT

974

44.33

87.84

  

TT

267

12.15

99.99

  

Total

2197

100

 
 

rs639855

GG

1247

56.81

56.81

  

GT

806

36.72

93.53

  

TT

142

6.47

100

  

Total

2195

100

 
 

rs9479757

AA

20

0.91

0.91

  

AG

369

16.8

17.71

  

GG

1807

82.29

100

  

Total

2196

100

 
 

rs497976

AA

142

6.49

6.49

  

AC

804

36.75

43.24

  

CC

1242

56.76

100

  

Total

2188

100

 

OPRK1

rs7815824

AG

155

7.09

7.09

  

GG

2032

92.91

100

  

Total

2187

100

 

COMT

rs2020917

CC

904

50.31

50.31

  

CT

744

41.4

91.71

  

TT

149

8.29

100

  

Total

1797

100

 
 

rs5993882

GG

110

5.05

5.05

  

GT

793

36.43

41.48

  

TT

1274

58.52

100

  

Total

2177

100

 
 

rs4646312

CC

344

15.87

15.87

  

CT

1032

47.6

63.47

  

TT

792

36.53

100

  

Total

2168

100

 
 

rs165722

CC

413

22.65

22.65

  

CT

926

50.8

73.45

  

TT

484

26.55

100

  

Total

1823

100

 
 

rs4633

CC

129

21.57

21.57

  

CT

307

51.34

72.91

  

TT

162

27.09

100

  

Total

598

100

 
 

rs4680

AA

623

27.9

27.9

  

AG

1110

49.71

77.61

  

GG

500

22.39

100

  

Total

2233

100

 

dbSNP single nucleotide polymorphism database identification, OPRD δ-opioid receptor, OPRM μ-opioid receptor, OPRK κ-opioid receptor, COMT catechol-O-methyltransferase, A Adenine, G Guanine; C Cytosine, T Thymine

Machine learning analysis

SVM is a binary classifier, previously used in other prediction studies in pain medicine [10, 11]. In the present study, classification was performed using the libSVM toolbox (version 3.20) for Matlab [11], and a linear kernel function was used to avoid over-fitting of the model [12]. The analysis process is described in details elsewhere [13]. In brief, 10 features along with a label indicating to which opioid dose group the patient belonged to were analyzed in the SVM. The number of features was determined by calculating the accuracy of the classifier by gradually increasing the number of features up to 10. Accuracy was defined as the ratio between correctly classified subjects and total number of subjects in percentage. Based on this, the SVM calculated an optimal decision rule to separate the two groups in the most optimal way. This was done by leave-one-out cross-validation by extracting one patient for testing, and using the remaining patients to train the model. This process was repeated until all patients had been left out. Once a decision rule was determined, a classification accuracy for each of the 10 features was calculated.

Statistical analysis

The null hypothesis was that SVM analysis of various SNPs could not predict the required opioid dose in cancer pain patients. All data are reported as mean ± standard deviation. Results from SVM classification were analyzed using Chi square tests. P values below 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

Out of 2294 EPOS participants, 1057 were excluded due to missing one or several of the selected SNPs. The included 1237 patients (637 males and 600 females) had an age of 62.6 ± 12.3 years and BMI of 23.4 ± 4.6). Of these, 662 (53%) required less or equal to 180 mg/24 h oral morphine equivalents, and 575 (47%) required more than 180 mg/24 h.

Machine learning was unable to distinguish between patients requiring less or equal to 180 mg/24 h oral morphine equivalents and those requiring more, using any number of SNP features from 1 to 10. Classification accuracies were: 1 feature; 52.9% (P = 0.08), 2 features; 52.9% (P = 0.08), 3 features; 52.9% (P = 0.08), 4 features; 52.9% (P = 0.08), 5 features; 52.9% (P = 0.08), 6 features; 53.0% (P = 0.07), 7 features; 53.0% (P = 0.07), 8 features; 53.0% (P = 0.07), 9 features; 53.0% (P = 0.07) and 10 features; 52.8% (P = 0.08).

Discussion

This study aimed to investigate whether SVM was able to identify associations between genetic variability and required opioid dose in cancer pain patients. None of the chosen 18 SNPs in the three candidate genes showed significant association with opioid dose, which support earlier findings from the EPOS study in which regular linear regressions were unable to identify correlations [6]. Hence, SVM analysis did not provide additional information regarding prediction of opioid dose using genetic profiling.

Limitations

A single SNP may only explain a minor part of analgesic variability. A recent study showed that combinations of genetic variants, e.g. in OPRM1 and COMT better explained variability in morphine consumption than single genetic variants [14]. Thus, one advantage of SVM is the possibility to include several SNPs in one analysis, compared to simple linear regression. However, for each SNP three genotypes exist. When using a binary variable which is necessary for SVM analysis, a dominant genetic model is assumed, which may not be optimal. Furthermore, the high number of SNPs included in the analysis may result in a lower accuracy. Additionally, if epistasis, which is the interaction between genes, is present, the effect of one SNP may be altered or masked by the effect of another SNP and thereby reduce the power to detect genetic associations. Thus, from the present study, it cannot be excluded that some SNPs in the selected genes are associated with required opioid dose.

Various statistical methods (based on general linear models) to predict and assess data relationship exist, but here, a SVM approach was selected, according to two reviews [15, 16]. Machine learning differs from conventional statistics, in that there is no predefined model and assumption of data normality, and each patient is classified at the individual level rather than the group. Furthermore, SVM can find non-linear relationships in data, and assess complex associations between several parameters. The latter is different from the traditional one-at-time approach in statistics, where relatively few variables can be tested. On the contrary, the SVM model can be over-fitted to the data and thus loose generalizability. Moreover, the method is relatively new, and many clinicians and researchers are not familiar with the method and output from the model.

Although the method of SVM presents itself with several limitations, methodological limitations of the study design itself may also have had an influence on the result. First, as opioid dose was the primary outcome in the EPOS study, it was used as outcome in the present study as well. Here it was anticipated that opioid dose is related to opioid response, i.e. high dose = less responsiveness to opioid analgesia, and low dose = high responsiveness to opioid analgesia, however this is only a rough estimation and many other factors may be important. Hence, a composite score taking pain intensity, opioid dose and side-effects into consideration might be a better outcome for association analyses of opioid efficacy [17]. However, such a composite score has not been developed or validated for cancer pain patients. In addition, only three opioid receptor genes were included in the analysis. Future studies should include more, as well as SNPs within genes other than those related to opioid receptor signaling, e.g. genes coding for pharmacokinetic factors. For instance, associations between SNPs within the ATP-binding cassette transporter- and cytochrome P450 genes and opioid analgesia have been found in both healthy volunteer and patient studies [4, 17].

Moreover, as human genetic factors only account for part of the inter-individual difference in pain sensitivity, several cofactors may also influence opioid consumption during the post-operative period. These include age, gender, mood, anxiety, drug–drug interactions and epigenetic factors. Thus, human experimental pain studies, conducted in a controlled setting, have shown to be of value to explore the genetic contribution to both pain sensitivity and analgesic responses [18].

Notes

Authors’ contributions

PK and FS collected, analyzed and interpreted data from the EPOS study. AEO, DG, MG and AMD analyzed and interpreted the SVM data regarding associations between opioid consumption and genetic profiling. All authors contributed to the final manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The EPOS study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approval was obtained from the local ethical committee in each participating study centre (Norway: The Regional Committee for Medical Research Ethics; Denmark: De Videnskabsetiske Komitéer for Københavns og Frederiksbergs Kommuner; Germany: Ethik-kommission an der Medizinischen Fakultät in Aachen; Iceland: The National Bioethics Committee of Iceland; Italy; Il Comitato Etico Independente, Comitato Etico dell’ Azienda-Unita’ Sanitaria Locale De Forli’, Comitato Etico Centrale dell’ Fondazione Salvatore Muageri; Lithuania: Lithuanian Bioethics Committee; Sweden: Regionala Etikprövningensnämnden i Stockholm; Switzerland: Etikkommission des Kantos St. Gallen; United Kingdom: The Royal Marsden Local Research Ethics Committee). Written informed consent was obtained from each volunteer.

Funding

Not applicable.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. 1.
    Grosen K, Fischer IWD, Olesen AE, Drewes AM. Can quantitative sensory testing predict responses to analgesic treatment? Eur J Pain. 2013;17(9):1267–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bruehl S, et al. Personalized medicine and opioid analgesic prescribing for chronic pain: opportunities and challenges. J Pain. 2013;14(2):103–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gram M, et al. Prediction of postoperative opioid analgesia using clinical-experimental parameters and electroencephalography. Eur J Pain (UK). 2017;21(2):264–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nielsen LM, Olesen AE, Branford R, Christrup LL, Sato H, Drewes AM. Association between human pain-related genotypes and variability in opioid analgesia: an updated review. Pain Pract. 2015;15(6):580–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fladvad T, Fayers P, Skorpen F, Kaasa S, Klepstad P. Lack of association between genetic variability and multiple pain-related outcomes in a large cohort of patients with advanced cancer: the European Pharmacogenetic Opioid Study (EPOS). BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2012;2(4):351–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Klepstad P, et al. Influence from genetic variability on opioid use for cancer pain: a European genetic association study of 2294 cancer pain patients. Pain. 2011;152(5):1139–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gram M, Graversen C, Olesen AE, Drewes AM. Machine learning on encephalographic activity may predict opioid analgesia. Eur J Pain (UK). 2015;19(10):1552–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Smith M, Muralidharan A. Pharmacogenetics of pain and analgesia. Clin Genet. 2012;82(4):321–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kim H, et al. Genetic influence on variability in human acute experimental pain sensitivity associated with gender, ethnicity and psychological temperament. Pain. 2004;109(3):488–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Graversen C, Drewes AM, Farina D. Support vector machine classification of multi-channel EEG traces: a new tool to analyze the brain response to morphine treatment,” in 2010 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology, 2010, pp. 992–5.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chang C-C, Lin C-J. LIBSVM. ACM Trans Intell Syst Technol. 2011;2(3):1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gong Q, et al. Prognostic prediction of therapeutic response in depression using high-field MR imaging. Neuroimage. 2011;55(4):1497–503.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cortes C, Vapnik V. Support-vector networks. Mach Learn. 1995;20(3):273–97.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    De Gregori M, et al. Human genetic variability contributes to postoperative morphine consumption. J Pain. 2016;17(5):628–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Orrù G, Pettersson-Yeo W, Marquand AF, Sartori G, Mechelli A. Using support vector machine to identify imaging biomarkers of neurological and psychiatric disease: a critical review. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2012;36(4):1140–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pombo N, Araújo P, Viana J. Knowledge discovery in clinical decision support systems for pain management: a systematic review. Artif Intell Med. 2014;60(1):1–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Silverman DG, O’connor TZ, Brull SJ. Integrated assessment of pain scores and rescue morphine use during studies of analgesic efficacy. Anesth Analg. 1993;77(1):168–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Olesen AE, Andresen T, Staahl C, Drewes AM. Human experimental pain models for assessing the therapeutic efficacy of analgesic drugs. Pharmacol Rev. 2012;64(3):722–79.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne Estrup Olesen
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Debbie Grønlund
    • 1
    • 3
  • Mikkel Gram
    • 1
  • Frank Skorpen
    • 4
  • Asbjørn Mohr Drewes
    • 1
    • 3
  • Pål Klepstad
    • 5
    • 6
    • 7
  1. 1.Mech-Sense, Department of Gastroenterology and HepatologyAalborg University HospitalAalborgDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Drug Design and Pharmacology, Faculty of Health and Medical SciencesUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  3. 3.Department of Clinical MedicineAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark
  4. 4.Department of Clinical and Molecular MedicineNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway
  5. 5.Department of Cancer Research and Molecular MedicineEuropean Palliative Care Research Centre, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)TrondheimNorway
  6. 6.Department of Circulation and Medical ImagingNorwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)TrondheimNorway
  7. 7.Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care MedicineSt Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University HospitalTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations