Abstract 2240: Clinical significance of <i>CEA, PRL3</i> and <i>EZH2</i> transcripts expressed in lymph nodes of colorectal cancer patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective: The role of micrometastases detected immunologically and molecularly in lymph nodes of colorectal cancer patients remains elusive. We investigated the prognostic significance of CEA, PRL3 and EZH2 expressed in lymph nodes of 42 pathologically node-negative (pN0) colorectal patients and 13 stage III/IV patients as controls. Seventeen pN0 patients (40%) received adjuvant therapy after curative surgery. Experimental design: CEA, PRL3 and EZH2 transcripts were amplified by reverse transcription PCR in nearly 600 paraffin embedded lymph nodes. On average 9.7 ± 5.7 nodes were harvested per case. After 55 months median follow-up, gene expression was correlated with recurrence-free (RFS), overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS), using Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank test for comparison. Results: The proportion of cases demonstrating CEA+, PRL3+ and EZH2+lymph node expression increased from stage I to III/IV and reached 71%, 76% and 26% respectively in the pN0 group. EZH2 had no significant prognostic value among pN0 patients. Disease progressed more rapidly (50% DFS at 30 versus 53 months) in EZH2+ than EZH2- node-positive patients. CEA+ was associated with ∼18% lower RFS/OS, and 8% lower DFS than CEA- among therapeutically-untreated patients, those with colon and with stage II tumors. pN0 patients with PRL3+ nodes had better outcomes than PRL3- cases (DFS, P= 0.059), namely in the colorectal (OS, P= 0.056; DFS, P= 0.12), colon (DFS, P= 0.056) and stage II tumor in the non-adjuvant settings (DFS, P= 0.0047). Conclusions: Lymph node expression of the PRL3 phosphatase gene predicted more favorable outcomes for pN0 colorectal cancer patients. The role of CEA as an adverse predictor of survival was confirmed albeit less significant than previously reported. Neither CEA nor PRL3 nodal expression was predictive of rectal cancer recurrence. Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 101st Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2010 Apr 17-21; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2010;70(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 2240.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".