Familial Adenomatous Polyposis-Associated Desmoids Display Significantly More Genetic Changes than Sporadic Desmoids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Desmoid tumours (also called deep or aggressive fibromatoses) are potentially life-threatening fibromatous lesions. Hereditary desmoid tumours arise in individuals affected by either familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) or hereditary desmoid disease (HDD) carrying germline mutations in APC. Most sporadic desmoids carry somatic mutations in CTNNB1. Previous studies identified losses on 5q and 6q, and gains on 8q and 20q as recurrent genetic changes in desmoids. However, virtually all genetic changes were derived from sporadic tumours. To investigate the somatic alterations in FAP-associated desmoids and to compare them with changes occurring in sporadic tumours, we analysed 17 FAP-associated and 38 sporadic desmoids by array comparative genomic hybridisation and multiple ligation-dependent probe amplification. Overall, the desmoids displayed only a limited number of genetic changes, occurring in 44% of cases. Recurrent gains at 8q (7%) and 20q (5%) were almost exclusively found in sporadic tumours. Recurrent losses were observed for a 700 kb region at 5q22.2, comprising the APC gene (11%), a 2 Mb region at 6p21.2-p21.1 (15%), and a relatively large region at 6q15-q23.3 (20%). The FAP-associated desmoids displayed a significantly higher frequency of copy number abnormalities (59%) than the sporadic tumours (37%). As predicted by the APC germline mutations among these patients, a high percentage (29%) of FAP-associated desmoids showed loss of the APC region at 5q22.2, which was infrequently (3%) seen among sporadic tumours. Our data suggest that loss of region 6q15-q16.2 is an important event in FAP-associated as well as sporadic desmoids, most likely of relevance for desmoid tumour progression.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".