MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2335111169 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2011-320

Abstract 320: Association of higher Gleason grade with presence of PTEN deletion in prostatic adenocarcinoma

2011· article· en· W2335111169 on OpenAlexaff
Maisa Yoshimoto, Andrew Evans, Joan Sweet, Olga Ludkovski, Keyue Ding, Greg Trottier, Kyu Sang Song, Jeremy A. Squire

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreRobarts Clinical TrialsUniversity Health NetworkQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPTENTMPRSS2Prostate cancerCancer researchFluorescence in situ hybridizationProstateTissue microarrayAdenocarcinomaFusion geneGrading (engineering)CancerPathologyBiologyMedicineImmunohistochemistryOncologyGeneChromosomeInternal medicineGeneticsDiseasePI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Prostatic adenocarcinoma (CaP) is one of the most histologically heterogeneous of epithelial malignancies. The Gleason score is widely accepted as the standard for histologic grading and determining prognosis of prostate malignancies. The tumor often presents with a multifocal distribution though the gland and different Gleason grades may be present in different foci. The current study was undertaken to compare the association of genomic alterations with the Gleason grades of individual adenocarcinoma foci. Genomic deletion of the PTEN gene in routine formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) pathology sections can be readily assayed by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Data from our group and others has shown that the genomic deletion of the PTEN tumor suppressor gene and the disruption of the ETS gene family, play a central role in prostate cancer and are likely to be associated with Gleason grade. In this study CaP samples were thoroughly analyzed to identify PTEN heterogeneity, within or between foci in multifocal tumors. This study was designed to retrospectively assess the overall frequency with which PTEN deletions and TMPRSS2-ERG fusion rearrangements occur individually and simultaneously, and their clinical impact through FISH analysis using well-annotated high-throughput tissue microarrays (TMAs) derived from 128 patients with CaP. In addition, four-color FISH analysis of the PTEN deletion was used to precisely detect the interstitial deletion of genomic content from this region of chromosome 10q and evaluate the tumor heterogeneity. Genomic PTEN deletion was observed in 55 of 128 (43%) patients with CaP (hemizygous = 41 and homozygous = 14 CaP). TMPRSS2-ERG fusion was observed in 58 of 129 (45%). We specifically examined the relationship between PTEN deletion and TMPRSS2-ERG fusion status, Gleason pattern and clinical behavior of CaP. Importantly, PTEN deletions were significantly associated with a higher primary Gleason pattern grade 4 (p=0.000), lymphovascular invasion (p=0.051), and higher percentage of prostate involved by tumor (p=0.0064). Although TMPRSS2-ERG fusions showed a strong relationship with PTEN deletions (p=0.007), TMPRSS2-ERG fusions did not show any clinical correlation. In conclusion, our findings indicated that PTEN deletion FISH can be applied to CaP samples to accurately stratify patients into risk categories and to guide decision-making with respect to the optimal management of CaP patients. Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 102nd Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2011 Apr 2-6; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2011;71(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 320. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2011-320

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)0.001
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
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→