Human Equilibrative Nucleoside Transporter 1 (hENT1) Levels Predict Response to Gemcitabine in Patients With Biliary Tract Cancer (BTC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and aim: Translational data suggest that nucleoside transporters, in particular human equilibrative nucleoside transporter 1 (hENT1), play an important role in predicting clinical outcome after gemcitabine chemotherapy for several types of cancer. The aim of this study was to retrospectively determine patients outcome according to the expression of hENT1 in tumoral cells of patients receiving gemcitabine-based therapy. Materials and Methods: The immunohistochemistry analysis was performed on samples from thirty-one patients with unresectable biliary tract cancer (BTC) consecutively treated with first line gemcitabine-based regimens. Results: Positive hENT1 staining patients were 21 (67.7%); negative hENT1 staining patients were 10 (32.3%). Statistical analysis revealed no association between baseline characteristics, toxicities and tumor response to gemcitabine and hENT1 levels. In the univariate analysis, HENT1 expression was significantly correlated with time to progression (TTP) (p=0.0394; HR 2.902, 95%CI 1.053-7.996). The median TTP was 6.33 versus 2.83 months, respectively in patients with positive versus negative hENT1 staining. Moreover, patients with positive hENT1 expression showed a longer median overall survival when compared with patients with low hENT1 expression (14 versus 7 months, respectively), but this difference did not reach the statistical significance (p=0.128). Conclusions: Therefore, hENT1 may be a relevant predictive marker of benefit from gemcitabine-based therapies in patients with advanced BTC. Keywords: Biliary tract cancer, gemcitabine, hENT1, predictive factor, tumors, surgical, radiation, oncologists, prognosis, cytotoxic agents, optimal chemotherapeutic regimen, pyrimidine analogue, hematopoietic progenitor cells, pancreatic cancers, WHO guidelines, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), tumour lesions, xylene baths, target antigen, pathologists, lymphocytes, staining, gall bladder, hematologic, dichotomized, extrahepatic biliary tract, oxaliplatin, toxicities, epithelial lining, gallbladder, bile ducts, heterogeneity
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".