MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2190879643 · doi:10.18632/aging.100798

What biomarkers (if any) for precise medicine?

2015· editorial· en· W2190879643 sur OpenAlexaff
Sabrina Strano, Paola Muti, Giovanni Blandino

Notice bibliographique

RevueAging · 2015
Typeeditorial
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Établissements canadiensMcMaster University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineMedical physics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The advent of the OMIC technologies has strongly evolved the knowledge about the origin, the type and the response to therapy of a given tumor. To date we are aware that the epigenetic and genomic landscapes of tumors which origin, histopathological diagnoses and clinical stages are almost identical can be highly heterogeneous. Initially, the Human Genome Project represented the reference map for the human genome and provided the ideal background for the development of technology and analytic tools to decipher and rationalize enormous quantities of genomic data [1]. Subsequently, the National Research Council reported on the requirement of a precise taxonomy of human disease based on the continuous flow of molecular data originating from the OMIC approaches. This led The Cancer Genome Atlas (TGCA) and the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) toward the molecular taxonomy of different human cancers. A large spectrum of gene mutations has been identified [1]. They can be categorized in: (a) passenger mutations that are the majority and may be biologically inactive and clinically irrelevant; (b) driver mutations whose activity is required for the aberrant growth, survival and chemoresistance of human cancers. Driver mutations have been the main molecular targets to be tackled with “smart” drugs, thus providing the rationale for precise medicine. Next Generation Sequence (NGS) technology has enabled to identify actionable targets such as EGFR in lung cancer and BRAF in melanoma [1,2]. Since these drugs benefit only those patients carrying specific driver mutations the identification of biomarkers that can predict treatment responses is vital for the success of the precise cancer therapy and for the development of anticancer drugs. EGFR mutations are considered biomarkers for selecting lung cancer patients for the treatment with EGFR inhibitors [3]. Gefinitib and erlotinib represent the first choice for the treatment of lung cancer patients carrying EGFR mutations and prolong significantly the progression-free survival of the selected patients. Despite it, both gefinitib and erlotinib cannot be used to treat all lung cancer patients harbouring EGFR mutations due to mutation site heterogeneity which negatively impacts on the affinity of EGFR inhibitors to the mutated EGFR and consequently of the efficacy of the treatment. Lung cancer patients develop resistance to EGFR inhibitors due mostly common (50% of EGFR mutated lung cancer patients) to additional EGFRT90M mutation [3]. Unlike EGFR, other driver mutations as those affecting the p53 gene, the most frequent target of genetic alterations in human cancers, have not yet led to the development of targeted drugs to be used in the treatment of human cancers carrying mutant p53 proteins [4]. This clearly says, that while thousands of cancer genome profiles have enormously improved the molecular taxonomy of human cancers, they have only paved a background for precise cancer therapy which urges to be continuously fed towards the identification of precise cancer biomarkers. The improvement of methodologies for the isolation of circulating tumoral DNA from patients enrolled in cancer genome-driven trials coupled with NGS might contribute to tailor more precisely cancer therapy [1]. At the same time, we have learned from the OMIC technologies that what so called non-coding portion of the human genome plays a fundamental role in regulating the expression and the activity of the genomic coding regions [5]. The last two decades have witnessed the identification of non-coding transcripts which accordingly to their respective lengths have been distinguished in long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs), microRNAs, small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) and Piwi-interacting RNAs (piRNAs). MicroRNAs, which regulate gene expression at the posttranscriptional level either inhibiting translation or promoting degradation of target mRNAs, emerge to be powerful to distinguish tumor tissues from their matched surrounding non-tumoral samples, to classify tumor hystotypes, to predict tumor recurrence, to identify responders vs non-responders and to monitor response to cancer therapy [5,6,7]. MicroRNAs might represent early indicators of future breast cancer incidence. Previous evidence has shown that metabolic and environmental risk factors may alter the expression of microRNAs. MicroRNA profiling of the leucocytes of healthy pre-menopausal women recruited in the ORDET prospective cohort study over a follow-up period of 20 years revealed that microRNA downregulation represents a very early alteration in the development of breast cancer [8]. Selected microRNA alterations identified in ORDET were also found in different breast cancer databases, thus strengthening their value as early long-term predictors of breast cancer occurrence [8]. MicroRNAs can also be found in blood and other biological fluids as circulating factors lined into exosomial vesicles. Despite the molecular mechanisms underlying the production and the release from tumoral cells and the intrinsic processing occurring in the exosomes are yet underexplored their potential to unveil powerful and precise cancer biomarkers is certainly promising and might provide with an additional option to treat cancer successfully.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,012
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,017
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,063

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0120,029
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,001
Bibliométrie0,0030,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,005
Communication savante0,0070,013
Science ouverte0,0020,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0070,007
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0170,014

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,012
Tête enseignante GPT0,295
Écart entre enseignants0,283 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreÉditorial

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations4
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAgingMême sujetCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsTravaux en français237 207