Cancer testis antigens in newly diagnosed and relapse multiple myeloma: prognostic markers and potential targets for immunotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In multiple myeloma, expression of cancer testis antigens may provide prognostic markers and potential targets for immunotherapy. Expression at relapse has not yet been evaluated for a large panel of cancer testis antigens which can be classified by varying expression in normal tissue: restricted to testis, expressed in testis and brain and not restricted but selectively expressed in testis. DESIGN AND METHODS: Evaluation of cancer testis antigen expression was made in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma cases (HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4 trial; n = 320) and in relapse cases (APEX, SUMMIT, CREST trials; n = 264). Presence of expression using Affymetrix GeneChips was determined for 123 cancer testis antigens. Of these 87 had a frequency of more than 5% in the newly diagnosed and relapsed patients, and were evaluated in detail. RESULTS: Tissue restriction was known for 58 out of 87 cancer testis antigens. A significantly lower frequency of presence calls in the relapsed compared to newly diagnosed cases was found for 3 out of 13 testis restricted genes, 2 out of 7 testis/brain restricted genes, and 17 out of 38 testis selective genes. MAGEC1, MAGEB2 and SSX1 were the most frequent testis-restricted cancer testis antigens in both data sets. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that presence of MAGEA6 and CDCA1 were clearly associated with shorter progression free survival, and presence of MAGEA9 with shorter overall survival in the set of newly diagnosed cases. In the set of relapse cases, presence of CTAG2 was associated with shorter progression free survival and presence of SSX1 with shorter overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: Relapsed multiple myeloma reveals extensive cancer testis antigen expression. Cancer testis antigens are confirmed as useful prognostic markers in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients and in relapsed multiple myeloma patients. The HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4 trial is registered under Dutch trial register n. NTR-213. CREST, SUMMIT and APEX trials were registered under ns. M34100-024, M34100-025 and NCT00049478/NCT00048230, respectively.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".