Clinically Relevant Molecular Subtypes in Leiomyosarcoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Leiomyosarcoma is a malignant neoplasm with smooth muscle differentiation. Little is known about its molecular heterogeneity and no targeted therapy currently exists for leiomyosarcoma. Recognition of different molecular subtypes is necessary to evaluate novel therapeutic options. In a previous study on 51 leiomyosarcomas, we identified three molecular subtypes in leiomyosarcoma. The current study was performed to determine whether the existence of these subtypes could be confirmed in independent cohorts. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Ninety-nine cases of leiomyosarcoma were expression profiled with 3'end RNA-Sequencing (3SEQ). Consensus clustering was conducted to determine the optimal number of subtypes. RESULTS: We identified 3 leiomyosarcoma molecular subtypes and confirmed this finding by analyzing publically available data on 82 leiomyosarcoma from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). We identified two new formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue-compatible diagnostic immunohistochemical markers; LMOD1 for subtype I leiomyosarcoma and ARL4C for subtype II leiomyosarcoma. A leiomyosarcoma tissue microarray with known clinical outcome was used to show that subtype I leiomyosarcoma is associated with good outcome in extrauterine leiomyosarcoma while subtype II leiomyosarcoma is associated with poor prognosis in both uterine and extrauterine leiomyosarcoma. The leiomyosarcoma subtypes showed significant differences in expression levels for genes for which novel targeted therapies are being developed, suggesting that leiomyosarcoma subtypes may respond differentially to these targeted therapies. CONCLUSIONS: We confirm the existence of 3 molecular subtypes in leiomyosarcoma using two independent datasets and show that the different molecular subtypes are associated with distinct clinical outcomes. The findings offer an opportunity for treating leiomyosarcoma in a subtype-specific targeted approach.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".