MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Prognostic significance of nuclear excision (NER) and base excision (BER) DNA repair gene polymorphisms in esophageal cancer

2007· article· en· W2285955673 on OpenAlexaff
Penny Bradbury, Ariela L. Marshall, Matthew H. Kulke, Wei Zhou, Rebecca S. Heist, Li Su, Thomas J. Lynch, Frances A. Shepherd, David C. Christiani, Geoffrey Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsERCC1Nucleotide excision repairSingle-nucleotide polymorphismXRCC1Base excision repairHazard ratioDNA repairMedicineInternal medicineGenotypeCisplatinCancer researchEsophageal cancerSNPOncologyXeroderma pigmentosumProportional hazards modelCancerConfidence intervalBiologyGeneticsGeneChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

2511 Background: DNA repair pathways are involved in cisplatin-induced damage (NER pathway) & radiation damage (BER pathway). Some single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of DNA repair genes are associated with DNA repair capacity, cancer risk & outcomes. We investigated the prognostic significance of 7 NER/BER SNPs on disease free (DFS) & overall survival (OS) in esophageal cancer. Methods: 150 patients with esophageal cancer treated with cisplatin-based chemoradiation & surgery were genotyped for BER (XRCC1 Arg399Gln; APE1 Asp148Glu; hOGG1 Ser326Cys) & NER (ERCC1 8092C/A; ERCC1 codon 118 C/T; XPD Asp312Asn; XPD Lys751Gln) SNPs. Analysis involved Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank tests, and Cox proportional hazards models. Results: Median age: 63 years (range 28–80); 91% male; 100% ECOG performance status (PS) 0–1; adenocarcinoma 79%; stages IIA 22%, IIB 30%, III 33%, and IVA 15%. No SNPs were associated with stage or PS. Multiple NER SNP was independently prognostic for OS and DFS (see Table ). When compared to individuals who were wildtype in all four studied NER SNPs, individuals with variants in all four NER SNPs were associated with substantial improvement in OS (Adjusted Hazard Ratio (AHR) = 0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.2–0.7) and DFS (AHR = 0.44, 95%CI = 0.2–0.8). Furthermore, increasing numbers of variant genotypes were associated with a progressive increase in OS & DFS when all seven NER/BER pathway SNPs were analysed together ( Table ). There was a 3.8- fold increase in OS (75 vs. 20 months) and five-fold increase in DFS (51 vs. 10 months) when comparing individuals with 6–7 SNPs with variant alleles to individuals with 0–1 SNPs with variant alleles. Conclusions: The ERCC1 8092 C/A, XPD Asp312Asn & XPD Lys751Gln SNPs in the NER pathway are associated individually with prognosis in esophageal cancer patients treated with cisplatin-based trimodality regimens. In addition, as the number of NER and BER SNPs carrying variant alleles increased, OS and DFS improved dramatically. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.400 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations→French-language works237,207→