This analysis shows FIBCD1's connection to immune modulation and radiomic features in breast cancer.
Abstract BackgroundBreast cancer prognosis remains challenging due to tumor heterogeneity and the limited predictive power of conventional clinical models. Integrating imaging features with molecular data may improve individualized risk stratification and clinical decision-making.MethodsWe developed a closed-loop prognostic model based on a macro–micro–macro radiogenomic framework that combines MRI-based radiomics with transcriptomic and proteomic data. A total of 788 radiomics-guided candidate genes were screened. Prognostic gene signatures were identified using multiple machine learning algorithms and validated in TCGA and GEO cohorts. We further analyzed immune infiltration, drug sensitivity, and gene enrichment profiles across risk groups. Causal relationships between gene expression and survival were assessed using Mendelian randomization. FIBCD1 expression was validated in patient plasma using ELISA, and Olink proteomics and radiomic analyses were conducted for biological interpretation.ResultsWe identified a 10-gene prognostic signature. The combined Elastic Net and stepwise Cox regression model achieved the highest concordance index (C-index = 0.645). High-risk patients showed reduced immune activation, increased expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines such as IL-6, and shorter survival. FIBCD1 emerged as a key prognostic gene with a significant causal association with survival. Its expression was significantly elevated in high-risk plasma samples, positively correlated with inflammatory proteins (e.g., OSM, CASP-8), and associated with specific radiomic features such as tumor sphericity.ConclusionsOur findings establish a novel radiogenomic strategy that bridges MRI-derived imaging phenotypes with molecular mechanisms. FIBCD1 may serve as an immune-modulating prognostic biomarker linked to imaging characteristics, providing new insights into non-invasive breast cancer risk assessment and therapeutic targeting.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hong et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: